Chun Ming Zhang v. Holder ( 2015 )

13-2117
Zhang v. Holder
BIA
Hom, IJ
A098 720 551
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 A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the 30th day of March, two thousand fifteen.
PRESENT:
DENNIS JACOBS,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
Chun Ming Zhang,
Petitioner,
v. 13-2117
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Rakhvir Kaur Dhanoa, New York, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General; John S. Hogan, Senior
Litigation Counsel; Todd J. Cochran,
Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Chun Ming Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, seeks review of the May 2, 2013 order of
the BIA denying his motion to reconsider the BIA’s February
12, 2013 denial of reopening. In re Chun Ming Zhang, No.
A098 720 551 (B.I.A. May 2, 2013). Although Zhang also
appears to seek review of the BIA’s underlying denial of his
motion to reopen, we do not have jurisdiction to consider
that decision because Zhang did not file a separate, timely
petition for review. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405
(1995); Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.
2006) (per curiam). We assume the parties’ familiarity with
the underlying facts and procedural history.
We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reconsider
for an abuse of discretion. Jin Ming Liu, 439 F.3d at 111.
A motion to reconsider “is a request that the Board
reexamine its decision in light of additional legal
arguments, a change of law, or perhaps an argument or aspect
of the case which was overlooked.” Matter of Cerna, 20 I. &
2
N. Dec. 399, 402 n.2 (BIA 1991) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The motion must specify errors of fact or law in
the BIA's decision and be supported with pertinent
authority. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
The BIA does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to
reconsider that merely repeats arguments that the BIA has
previously rejected. Jin Ming Liu, 439 F.3d at 111.
We discern no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s denial
of Zhang’s motion to reconsider, which merely renewed the
arguments in his motion to reopen and failed to identify any
factual or legal errors in the BIA’s decision denying
reopening. See id. Moreover, the BIA's decision denying
reopening demonstrates that it considered Zhang's evidence
and explained why he did not establish changed country
conditions; accordingly, Zhang cannot show that any argument
or aspect of his case was overlooked. See Matter of Cerna,
20 I. & N. Dec. at 402 n.2. To the extent that Zhang sought
to introduce new evidence following the denial of reopening,
a motion to reconsider was not the appropriate vehicle by
which to do so. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
3
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4