Lehbib v. Sessions ( 2018 )

16-958
Lehbib v. Sessions
BIA
A201 118 249
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT
FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE
(WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY
OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 31st day of May, two thousand eighteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 MOHAMED LEMINE ISSELMOU LEHBIB,
14 AKA ISSELMOU LEHBIB
15 MOHAMEDLEMINE, AKA ISSELMOU
16 LEHBIB MOHAMED LEMINE, AKA
17 MOHAMEDLEMINE ISSELMON,
18 Petitioner,
19
20 v. 16-958
21 NAC
22 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
23 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
24 Respondent.
25 _____________________________________
26
27 FOR PETITIONER: Bibiana C. Andrade, New York, NY.
28
29 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
30 Assistant Attorney General; Carl
31 McIntyre, Assistant Director;
32 Robert D. Tennyson, Trial Attorney,
1 Office of Immigration Litigation,
2 United States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, DC.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
8 DENIED.
9 Petitioner Mohamed Lemine Isselmou Lehbib, a native and
10 citizen of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, seeks review of
11 a February 29, 2016, decision of the BIA denying Lehbib’s motion
12 for reconsideration. In re Mohamed Lemine Isselmou Lehbib, No.
13 A201 118 249 (B.I.A. Feb. 29, 2016). We assume the parties’
14 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
15 in this case.
16 We review the BIA’s denial of motions to reconsider for
17 abuse of discretion. Zhao Quan Chen v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 153,
18 154 (2d Cir. 2007). “The BIA abuses its discretion . . . when
19 it provides no rational explanation, departs from established
20 policies without explanation, or justifies its decision with
21 only conclusory statements.” Id. A motion to reconsider
22 “request[s] that the Board reexamine its decision in light of
23 additional legal arguments, a change of law, or perhaps an
24 argument or aspect of the case which was overlooked.” Jin Ming
2
1 Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). “A motion
2 to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by
3 specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision
4 and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R.
5 § 1003.2(b)(1).
6 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lehbib’s
7 motion to reconsider. Lehbib argues that he satisfied the
8 procedural requirements for an ineffective assistance of
9 counsel claim as set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I & N Dec.
10 637 (BIA 1988), by notifying his former counsel of his
11 ineffective assistance claim. This argument misses the mark.
12 The BIA found compliance with Lozada, but denied
13 reconsideration on another ground: Lehbib’s failure to identify
14 any prejudice.
15 Lehbib also argues that he was prejudiced because counsel
16 prevented him from fully corroborating his claim. But Lehbib
17 raised this same argument on appeal to the BIA and “[t]he BIA
18 does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider
19 where the motion repeats arguments that the BIA has previously
20 rejected.” Jin Ming Liu, 439 F.3d at 111.
21
22
3
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED.
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4