Islam v. Holder ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •          09-1237-ag
    Islam v. Holder
    BIA
    A076 026 583
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
    SUMMARY ORDER
    RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT.     CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS
    FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1
    AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1.     IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A
    LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST
    ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION:
    “(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER
    TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED
    BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS
    PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT
    HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE
    ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE
    DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.
    1            At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
    2       for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
    3       United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
    4       New York, on the 8 th day of December, two thousand nine.
    5
    6       PRESENT:
    7                DENNIS JACOBS,
    8                         Chief Judge,
    9                JON O. NEWMAN,
    10                DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
    11                         Circuit Judges.
    12       _________________________________________
    13
    14       MOHAMMED HABIBUL ISLAM,
    15                Petitioner,
    16
    17                         v.                                     09-1237-ag
    18                                                                NAC
    19       ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
    20       ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
    21       OF JUSTICE,
    22                Respondent.
    23       _________________________________________
    24
    25       FOR PETITIONER:                Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, New
    26                                      York.
    1    FOR RESPONDENTS:        Tony West, Assistant Attorney
    2                            General; Keith I. McManus, Senior
    3                            Litigation Counsel; Timothy G.
    4                            Hayes, Trial Attorney, Office of
    5                            Immigration Litigation, United
    6                            States Department of Justice,
    7                            Washington, D.C.
    8
    9        UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
    10   Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
    11   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
    12   is DENIED.
    13       Petitioner Mohammed Habibul Islam, a native and citizen
    14   of Bangladesh, seeks review of the February 27, 2009 order
    15   of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider.   In re Mohammed
    16   Habibul Islam, No. A076 026 583 (B.I.A. Feb. 27, 2009).     We
    17   assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
    18   and procedural history of the case.
    19       When, as here, an alien files a timely petition for
    20   review from the denial of a motion to reconsider, but not
    21   from the underlying decision for which reconsideration is
    22   sought, we may review only the denial of the motion to
    23   reconsider.   Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 
    265 F.3d 24
       83, 89-90 (2d Cir. 2001).   Thus, to the extent Islam
    25   challenges the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen, we are
    26   without jurisdiction to consider his arguments.   To the
    2
    1    extent Islam challenges the denial of his motion to
    2    reconsider, we find that the BIA reasonably denied that
    3    motion because he failed to specify errors of fact or law in
    4    its prior decision as required by 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (b)(1).
    5    See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 
    439 F.3d 109
    , 111 (2d Cir.
    6    2006) (per curiam) (holding that “[t]he BIA does not abuse
    7    its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider where the
    8    motion [merely] repeats arguments that the BIA has
    9    previously rejected.”).
    10       For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
    11   DENIED.   As we have completed our review, any stay of
    12   removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
    13   is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
    14   this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
    15   oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
    16   Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second
    17   Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
    18                               FOR THE COURT:
    19                               Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
    20
    21
    22                               By:___________________________
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-1237-ag

Judges: Jacobs, Newman, Livingston

Filed Date: 12/8/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024