09-2149-ag
Zhang-Xiano v. Holder
BIA
A077 222 957
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 18 th day of June, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 PETER W. HALL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 YAN ZHANG-XIANO, a.k.a. XUE YUN YANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-2149-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Yung H. Hsu, New York, New York.
1 FOR RESPONDENTS: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
2 General; Richard Evans, Assistant
3 Director; Brooke M. Maurer, Trial
4 Attorney, Office of Immigration
5 Litigation, Civil Division, United
6 States Department of Justice,
7 Washington, D.C.
8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
11 is DENIED.
12 Petitioner Yan Zhang-Xiano, a native and citizen of the
13 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 21,
14 2009, order of the BIA denying her motion to reconsider. In
15 re Yan Zhang-Xiano, a.k.a. Xue Yun Yang, No. A077 222 957
16 (B.I.A. Apr. 21, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity
17 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this
18 case.
19 This Court ordinarily reviews the BIA’s denial of a
20 motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. Jin Ming Liu
21 v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). Here,
22 however, Petitioner does not challenge the BIA’s denial of
23 her motion to reconsider, the only decision we are empowered
24 to review. See Nwogu v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 80, 84 (2d Cir.
25 2007) (denying petition where applicant failed to raise “any
26 of the issues relevant” to BIA’s denial of his motion to
27 reopen). Rather, Petitioner’s brief implies that the
2
1 petition is a challenge to either the BIA’s affirmance of
2 the IJ’s decision or the BIA’s denial of her previously
3 filed motion to reopen. Even the portions of the brief that
4 are arguably responsive to the decision actually before us
5 fail to assert a meaningful legal argument appropriate for
6 our review. Under such circumstances, we find that
7 Petitioner has waived any challenge to the BIA’s denial of
8 her motion to reconsider. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426
9 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005); Nwogu, 491 F.3d
10 at 84.
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion
13 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
14 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is
15 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
16 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
17
18 FOR THE COURT:
19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
20
21
3