[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-13754 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JUNE 24, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
Agency No. A097-687-059
EYTAN IZYAGUYEV, a.k.a. Eytan Isiaguev,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lRespondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(June 24, 2011)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Eytan Izyaguyev petitions for review of the Bureau of Immigration
Appeals’s (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reconsider its summary affirmance of
the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen his removal
proceedings, in which the IJ ordered Izaguyev’s removal in absentia.
We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for an abuse of
discretion. Calle v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007).1 A
motion to reconsider “shall specify the errors of law or fact in the previous order
and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” INA § 240(c)(6)(C), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(6)(C); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). A motion to reconsider that merely
reiterates arguments previously presented to the BIA does not specify errors of
facts or law as required for a successful motion to reconsider. Calle, 504 F.3d at
1329. Here, the BIA properly found that the motion for reconsideration reiterated
Izyaguyev’s previous arguments and failed to point out an error of law or fact with
respect to the BIA’s summary affirmance of the IJ’s denial of his motion to
reopen. Accordingly, we deny Izyaguyev’s petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
1
Although the government argues on appeal that there is no judicially manageable
standard for reviewing the BIA’s denial of the motion to reconsider, our case law provides that
such motions are reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Accordingly, as stated in our
March 2, 2011, order, we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Izyaguyev’s motion to
reconsider.
2