12-2913
Sun v. Holder
BIA
A088 792 958
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.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 18th day of July, two thousand thirteen.
5
6
7 PRESENT:
8 JON O. NEWMAN,
9 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
10 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 DAI SHIN SUN,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 12-2913
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: David A. Bredin, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier,
28 Assistant Director; Lindsay M.
29 Murphy, Trial Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, United
2 States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, D.C.
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
5 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
6 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for
7 review is DENIED.
8 Dai Shin Sun, a native and citizen of the People’s
9 Republic of China, seeks review of a June 28, 2012, decision
10 of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Dai Shin
11 Sun, No. A088 792 958 (B.I.A. June 28, 2012). We assume the
12 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
13 procedural history of this case.
14 As the government argues, our review in this case is
15 limited to the BIA’s June 2012 denial of Sun’s motion to
16 reconsider because that is the only decision from which he
17 filed a timely petition for review. See Ke Zhen Zhao v.
18 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir. 2001);
19 see also Luna v. Holder, 637 F.3d 85, 92 (2d Cir. 2011)
20 (recognizing that the 30-day filing requirement of 8 U.S.C.
21 § 1252(b)(1) “is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable
22 tolling” (quotation marks and citation omitted)). We review
23 the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of
2
1 discretion. Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d
2 Cir. 2006). The BIA reasonably denied Sun’s motion to
3 reconsider because his additional attempts to explain his
4 demeanor at his merits hearing and an inconsistency in the
5 record of his underlying proceedings failed to specify
6 errors of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision as
7 required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). See id. at 111; see
8 also In re Cerna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 399, 402 n.2 (B.I.A.
9 1991).
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 34.1(b).
18 FOR THE COURT:
19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3