Filed: Jan. 27, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 07-5692-ag Hafeez v. Holder BIA A097 515 475 A097 515 474 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 T
Summary: 07-5692-ag Hafeez v. Holder BIA A097 515 475 A097 515 474 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 TH..
More
07-5692-ag
Hafeez v. Holder
BIA
A097 515 475
A097 515 474
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 27 th day of January, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
10 PETER W. HALL,
11 Circuit Judges.
12
13 ______________________________________
14
15 MUMTAZ HAFEEZ, SAMIA CHAUDHRY,
16 Petitioners,
17
18 v. 07-5692-ag
19 NAC
20 ERIC H. HOLDER JR., 1 UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 ______________________________________
24
25
26
27
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric. H. Holder Jr. is
automatically substituted for former Attorney General
Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.
1 FOR PETITIONERS: Pro Se
2
3 FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant
4 Attorney General, Civil Division,
5 Michelle Gorden Latour, Assistant
6 Director, Jessica E. Sherman, Trial
7 Attorney, Office of Immigration
8 Litigation, Civil Division, United States
9 Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
13 is DENIED.
14 Mumtaz Hafeez, a native and citizen of Pakistan, and
15 her daughter, Samia Chaudhry, a native of Saudia Arabia and
16 a citizen of Pakistan, seek review of a November 26, 2007
17 order of the BIA denying their motion to reconsider. In re
18 Mumtaz Hafeez, Samia Chaudhry, Nos. A097 515 475/474 (B.I.A.
19 Nov. 26, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
20 underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
21 As a preliminary matter, Petitioners argue that the
22 agency erred by denying their motion to reopen. However, we
23 may not review their challenge to the agency’s denial of
24 their motion to reopen, because only the BIA’s denial of
25 their motion to reconsider is properly before us. See
26 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of
27 Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001).
2
1 A motion to reconsider must be filed with the BIA
2 within 30 days after the mailing of the BIA decision being
3 challenged. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(c)(6); 8 C.F.R.
4 § 1003.2(b)(2). There is no exception to the filing
5 deadline for such motions. Matter of J-J-, 21 I.&N. Dec.
6 976, 978 (B.I.A. 1997). We review the BIA’s denial of a
7 motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Jin Ming
8 Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). The
9 agency’s regulations provide that a motion to reconsider
10 must specify errors of fact or law in the BIA’s decision.
11 See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen
Zhao, 265 F.3d at 93.
12 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
13 Petitioners’ motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R.
14 § 1003.2(b)(2). The BIA denied Petitioners’ motion to
15 reopen on May 23, 2007, and they did not file their motion
16 to reconsider until June 25, 2007. Petitioners argue that
17 their motion was timely because it was mailed on Saturday,
18 June 23, 2007; however the last day Petitioners could have
19 timely filed their motion was Friday, June 22, 2007.
20 Moreover, their argument concerning equitable tolling fails
21 because they never contended that they received ineffective
22 assistance in filing their motion to reconsider. See 8
23 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2); Matter of J-J-, 21 I.&N. Dec. at 978.
3
1 In any event, the BIA reasonably denied Petitioners’
2 motion to reconsider based on their failure to specify
3 errors of fact or law in the agency’s prior decision. See 8
4 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Petitioners essentially repeated the
5 same arguments that they made in their motion to reopen.
6 See Jin Ming Liu, 439 F.3d at 111. To the extent the motion
7 included new arguments, Petitioners could have raised these
8 arguments on appeal to the BIA but neglected to do so. A
9 “motion to reconsider based on a legal argument that could
10 have been raised earlier in the proceedings will be denied.”
11 Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 56, 58 (B.I.A 2006).
12 Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
13 Petitioners’ motion to reconsider. See Jin Ming Liu,
439
14 F.3d at 111.
15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
16 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
17 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
18 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
19 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
20 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
21 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
22 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
23 FOR THE COURT:
24 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
25
26
27
4
