Chi Fong Yang v. Holder

Second Circuit

Chi Fong Yang v. Holder

378 F. App'x 22

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 20, 2010

Docket09-4018-ag

StatusUnpublished

This text of 378 F. App'x 22 (Chi Fong Yang v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chi Fong Yang v. Holder, 378 F. App'x 22 (2d Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Chi Fong Yang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the August 31, 2009, order of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Chi Fong Yang, No. A029 809 073 (B.I.A. Aug. 31, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Our review in this ease is limited to the BIA’s August 2009 denial of Yang’s motion to reconsider, because that is the only decision from which he filed a timely petition for review. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir.2001). As the government argues, however, Yang waives any challenge to that decision. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005). Instead, Yang’s brief is devoted to challenging the findings the BIA made in denying his motion to reopen, a decision that is not properly before us. See Ke Zhen Zhao, 265 F.3d at 89-90. Because Yang has effectively waived any challenge to the decision we are “empowered to review,” his petition for review must be denied. See Nwogu v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 80, 84 (2d Cir.2007) (denying petition where applicant failed to raise “any of the issues relevant” to BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen).

We note that even if Yang had not waived such arguments, we would conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to reconsider because he merely repeated the same argument that the BIA had previously considered and rejected in denying his motion to reopen. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Chi Fong Yang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the August 31, 2009, order of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Chi Fong Yang, No. A029 809 073 (B.I.A. Aug. 31, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Our review in this ease is limited to the BIA’s August 2009 denial of Yang’s motion to reconsider, because that is the only decision from which he filed a timely petition for review. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir.2001). As the government argues, however, Yang waives any challenge to that decision. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005). Instead, Yang’s brief is devoted to challenging the findings the BIA made in denying his motion to reopen, a decision that is not properly before us. See Ke Zhen Zhao, 265 F.3d at 89-90. Because Yang has effectively waived any challenge to the decision we are “empowered to review,” his petition for review must be denied. See Nwogu v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 80, 84 (2d Cir.2007) (denying petition where applicant failed to raise “any of the issues relevant” to BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen).

We note that even if Yang had not waived such arguments, we would conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to reconsider because he merely repeated the same argument that the BIA had previously considered and rejected in denying his motion to reopen. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

378 F. App'x 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chi-fong-yang-v-holder-ca2-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack