Case Name: Yan Zhen CHEN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-21
Citations: 159 F. App'x 318
Docket Number: No. 04-3182-AG
Parties: Yan Zhen CHEN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI, Hon. ROBERT A. KATZMANN, and Hon. REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 159
Pages: 318–319

Head Matter:
Yan Zhen CHEN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent.
No. 04-3182-AG.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Dec. 21, 2005.
Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
Gregory A. White, United States Attorney, Bruce A. Khula, Assistant United States Attorney, Cleveland, Ohio, for Respondent.
PRESENT: Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI, Hon. ROBERT A. KATZMANN, and Hon. REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is automatically substituted for former Attorney General John Ashcroft in this case.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Yan Zhen Chen petitions for review of the BIA decision denying a motion to reopen and reconsider the BIA order affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") deci sion denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.
This Court reviews the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam); Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 165 (2d Cir.2004) (citing Brice v. United States Dep't of Justice, 806 F.2d 415, 419 (2d Cir.1986)).
In this case, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to reconsider its decision in light of errors allegedly made by the IJ, where it had already considered and rejected these arguments in its initial review of the IJ's decision. See Matter of Guevara, 20 I. & N. Dec. 238 (BIA 1991). Additionally, because there is no indication that the affidavit from Chen's father was unavailable at the time of her hearing before the IJ, the BIA also did not abuse its discretion in determining that Chen's documentation did not meet the regulatory requirements to sustain a motion to reopen.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. Having completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(d)(1).