09-1660-ag
Dukureh v. Holder
BIA
A073 049 221
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 21 st day of June, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7
8 RALPH K. WINTER,
9 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
10 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _________________________________________
13
14 BAKAMO DUKUREH,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 09-1660-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _________________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Ronald S. Salomon, New York, New
25 York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
28 General; Richard M. Evans, Assistant
29 Director; Nancy E. Friedman, Senior
1 Litigation Counsel, Civil Division,
2 Office of Immigration Litigation,
3 United States Department of Justice,
4 Washington, D.C.
5
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
9 is DENIED.
10 Petitioner Bakamo Dukureh, a native and citizen of
11 Gambia, seeks review of the March 23, 2009, order of the BIA
12 denying his motion to reconsider. In re Bakamo Dukureh, No.
13 A073 049 221 (B.I.A. Mar. 23, 2009). We assume the parties’
14 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
15 of the case.
16 When, as here, an alien files a timely petition for
17 review from the denial of a motion to reconsider, but not
18 from the underlying decision for which reconsideration is
19 sought, we may review only the denial of the motion to
20 reconsider. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265
21 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir. 2001). To the extent that Dukureh
22 challenges the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider, we
23 find that the BIA reasonably denied that motion because he
24 failed to specify errors of fact or law in its prior
25 decision as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). As the BIA
2
1 found, it was entitled to apply its holding in Matter of A-
2 K-, 24 I&N Dec. 275 (BIA 2007) rather than cases from other
3 circuits that had been issued prior to that precedential
4 decision. 1
5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
6 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
7 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
8 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
9 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
10 oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance
11 with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and
12 Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
15
16
1
Our recent decision in Kone v. Holder is not to the
contrary. See — F.3d —, No. 08-1445-ag, 2010 WL 653258, at
9 (2d Cir. Feb. 25, 2010). The petitioner in that case had
suffered past persecution in the form of FGM. In light of
that persecution, we encouraged the BIA to “consider []
whether the mental anguish of a mother who was herself a
victim of genital mutilation who faces the choice of seeing
her daughter suffer the same fact, or avoiding that outcome
by separation from her child, may qualify as such ‘other
serious harm,’” as specified in the humanitarian asylum
regulation. Id. Here, however, Dukureh does not allege
that he suffered past persecution.
3