Seadinovski v. Holder

10-4412-ag
Seadinovski v. Holder
BIA
A079 329 253
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New
York, on the 4th day of January, two thousand twelve.
PRESENT:
JON O. NEWMAN,
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
DENNY CHIN,
Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________
DEMIR SEADINOVSKI,
Petitioner,
v. 10-4412-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_________________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Andrew P. Johnson, New York, New York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General;
Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant Director;
Roseanne M. Perry, 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.
Petitioner Demir Seadinvoski, a native of Yugoslavia and
a citizen of Macedonia, seeks review of the October 26, 2010,
decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Demir
Seadinovski, No. A079 329 253 (B.I.A. Oct. 26, 2010). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history of the case.
The BIA’s denial of Seadinovski’s motion to reopen was
not an abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232,
233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). In denying reopening, the
BIA noted that Seadinovski failed to submit an asylum
application with his motion as required under 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Because Seadinovski fails to challenge
this dispositive finding of the BIA, he has abandoned the
issue. See LNC Invs., Inc. v. Nat’l Westminster Bank, N.J.,
308 F.3d 169, 176 n.8 (2d Cir. 2002) (“While we no doubt have
the power to address an argument despite its abandonment on
appeal, we ordinarily will not do so ‘unless manifest
injustice otherwise would result.’” (quoting Anderson v.
-2-
Branen, 27 F.3d 29, 30 (2d Cir. 1994))). Here, no “manifest
injustice” results from the denial of Seadinovski’s petition,
as the relevant regulation provides that “[a] motion to reopen
proceedings for the purpose of submitting an application for
relief must be accompanied by the appropriate application for
relief and all supporting documentation.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(1). As the plain language of the regulation
provides, failure to comply with the requirement is a ground
for denial of the motion. See Zhen Nan Lin v. Dep’t of
Justice, 459 F.3d 255, 262 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Lin Xing
Jiang v. Holder, 639 F.3d 751, 757 (7th Cir. 2011) (holding
that it was within the discretion of the BIA to deny a motion
to reopen because it was not accompanied by an asylum
application). Because no manifest injustice results, and this
finding is a dispositive basis for the denial of the motion to
reopen, we deny the petition for review. See Steevenez v.
Gonzales,476 F.3d 114, 118 (2d Cir. 2007)(denying petition for
review because petitioner failed to challenge dispositive
ground for relief).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
-3-
and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in
this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
34.1(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
-4-