10-2459-ag
Pukri v. Holder
BIA
A095 841 294
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 3rd day of November, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 ______________________________________
13
14 VITOR PUKRI AKA VIKTOR PUKRI,
15 Petitioner,
16 10-2459-ag
17 v. NAC
18
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 ______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Saul C. Brown, New York, New York.
25
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
2 General; Lyle D. Jentzer, Senior
3 Litigation Counsel; Glen T. Jaeger,
4 Trial Attorney, Office of
5 Immigration Litigation, Civil
6 Division, United States Department
7 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
8
9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
12 is DENIED.
13 Petitioner Vitor Pukri, a native and citizen of
14 Albania, seeks review of a May 24, 2010, decision of the BIA
15 denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re
16 Pukri, No. A095 841 294 (B.I.A. May 24, 2010). We assume
17 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
18 procedural history of the case.
19 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
20 abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517
21 (2d Cir. 2006). In denying Pukri’s motion, the BIA cited
22 his failure to submit an asylum application with his motion
23 as required under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Pukri fails
24 to challenge this ruling, which is dispositive. See LNC
25 Invs., Inc. v. Nat’l Westminster Bank, N.J., 308 F.3d 169,
26 176 n.8 (2d Cir. 2002) (“While we no doubt have the power to
2
1 address an argument despite its abandonment on appeal, we
2 ordinarily will not do so ‘unless manifest injustice
3 otherwise would result.’” (quoting Anderson v. Branen, 27
4 F.3d 29, 30 (2d Cir. 1994))).
5 Moreover, “[a] motion to reopen proceedings for the
6 purpose of submitting an application for relief must be
7 accompanied by the appropriate application for relief and
8 all supporting documentation.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
9 The BIA’s position is that failure to comply with the
10 requirement is a ground for denial of the motion. Since the
11 plain language of the regulation supports that position, we
12 defer to it. See Zhen Nan Lin v. Dep’t of Justice, 459 F.3d
13 255, 262 (2d Cir. 2006). Other circuit courts have reached
14 the same conclusion in published opinions. See Lin Xing
15 Jiang v. Holder, 639 F.3d 751, 757 (7th Cir. 2011); Romero-
16 Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1064 (9th Cir. 2008);
17 Waggoner v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 632, 638-39 (5th Cir. 2007);
18 Palma-Mazariegos v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 144, 147 (1st Cir.
19 2007).
20 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
21 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
22 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
23 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
3
1 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
2 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
3 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
4 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
7
4