Opinion ID: 221618
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The BIA’s Denial of Reconsideration

Text: In the portion of her motion seeking reconsideration of the BIA’s March 15 order, Lin argued that the BIA (1) did not adequately address her evidence under Zheng, and (2) erred in concluding that her Chinese documents were not authentic because it overlooked —, No. 09-3459, 2011 WL 923353, at -3 (3d Cir. Mar. 18, 2011). 3 the alleged facts that they bore official stamps and that she provided the envelope in which they were mailed from China. (A.R. 12-15.) The BIA denied reconsideration because it concluded that Lin “has not presented a material factual or legal aspect of the case that the Board overlooked based on the arguments raised in the prior motion.” (Nov. 29, 2010 BIA Order at 1, A.R. 3.) In particular, it concluded that Lin herself had not addressed most of the evidence she previously submitted or “indicate[d] how it was material to her claim.” (Id. at 2, A.R. 4.). It also concluded that Lin had raised no argument calling into question its earlier conclusion that she had failed to authenticate her foreign documents in any manner. (Id.) Lin argues that the BIA abused its discretion in two ways. Both arguments lack merit. First, Lin argues that the BIA erred in concluding that she had not indicated how the documents she previously submitted were material to her claim. It is true that, in her initial motion to reopen, she argued at some length how particular Chinese documents supported her claim. (A.R. at 188-91.) The BIA, however, had rejected those documents for lack of authentication. Its reference to Lin’s failure to argue how “most” of her evidence supported her claim thus evidently referred to the other evidence she submitted, the vast majority of which she did not discuss. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying reconsideration on this ground. Second, Lin argues that the BIA erred in rejecting her Chinese documents because some of those documents (which she does not specifically identify) are available on “the Chinese government’s [otherwise-unidentified] official websites.” Lin, however, did not 4 raise that argument in her motion for reconsideration. (A.R. 12-15.) Because Lin did not present that argument to the BIA as a ground for reconsideration, the BIA can hardly be said to have abused its discretion by failing to reconsider on that basis. It is true that Lin raised that argument in her initial motion to reopen and that the BIA did not address it in denying that motion in its order of March 15. The March 15 order itself, however, is not before us for review. We may instead review only whether the BIA abused its discretion in declining to reconsider that order on the basis of the arguments that Lin presented as grounds for reconsideration and now presents on review. See Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004). We cannot say that it did.