Court Opinion

ID: 8600620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-23 21:55:50.919144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:10.409664
License: Public Domain

SUMMARY ORDER
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 9th day of May, two thousand and six.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
Ramiz Ukpera, through counsel, petitions for review of a BIA decision denying his motion to reconsider his removal proceedings. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
This Court reviews the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005); Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 165 (2d Cir.2004). An abuse of discretion may be found where the BIA’s decision “provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the Board has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Kaur, 413 F.3d at 233-34; Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir.2001).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ukpera’s motion to reconsider. In his motion, Ukpera merely repeated arguments that the BIA rejected in dismissing his appeal. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.2006). Further, the BIA reasonably addressed and rejected his arguments concerning credibility.
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 *14in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(d)(1).