Lehbib v. Sessions
This text of Lehbib v. Sessions (Lehbib v. Sessions) 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.
Opinion
16-958 Lehbib v. Sessions BIA A201 118 249
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 TO 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 31st day of May, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RALPH K. WINTER, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MOHAMED LEMINE ISSELMOU LEHBIB, 14 AKA ISSELMOU LEHBIB 15 MOHAMEDLEMINE, AKA ISSELMOU 16 LEHBIB MOHAMED LEMINE, AKA 17 MOHAMEDLEMINE ISSELMON, 18 Petitioner, 19 20 v. 16-958 21 NAC 22 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 23 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 24 Respondent. 25 _____________________________________ 26 27 FOR PETITIONER: Bibiana C. Andrade, New York, NY. 28 29 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 30 Assistant Attorney General; Carl 31 McIntyre, Assistant Director; 32 Robert D. Tennyson, Trial Attorney, 1 Office of Immigration Litigation, 2 United States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
8 DENIED.
9 Petitioner Mohamed Lemine Isselmou Lehbib, a native and
10 citizen of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, seeks review of
11 a February 29, 2016, decision of the BIA denying Lehbib’s motion
12 for reconsideration. In re Mohamed Lemine Isselmou Lehbib, No.
13 A201 118 249 (B.I.A. Feb. 29, 2016). We assume the parties’
14 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
15 in this case.
16 We review the BIA’s denial of motions to reconsider for
17 abuse of discretion. Zhao Quan Chen v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 153,
18 154 (2d Cir. 2007). “The BIA abuses its discretion . . . when
19 it provides no rational explanation, departs from established
20 policies without explanation, or justifies its decision with
21 only conclusory statements.” Id. A motion to reconsider
22 “request[s] that the Board reexamine its decision in light of
23 additional legal arguments, a change of law, or perhaps an
24 argument or aspect of the case which was overlooked.” Jin Ming
2 1 Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). “A motion
2 to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by
3 specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision
4 and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R.
5 § 1003.2(b)(1).
6 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lehbib’s
7 motion to reconsider. Lehbib argues that he satisfied the
8 procedural requirements for an ineffective assistance of
9 counsel claim as set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I & N Dec.
10 637 (BIA 1988), by notifying his former counsel of his
11 ineffective assistance claim. This argument misses the mark.
12 The BIA found compliance with Lozada, but denied
13 reconsideration on another ground: Lehbib’s failure to identify
14 any prejudice.
15 Lehbib also argues that he was prejudiced because counsel
16 prevented him from fully corroborating his claim. But Lehbib
17 raised this same argument on appeal to the BIA and “[t]he BIA
18 does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider
19 where the motion repeats arguments that the BIA has previously
20 rejected.” Jin Ming Liu, 439 F.3d at 111.
3 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED.
3 FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Lehbib v. Sessions, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lehbib-v-sessions-ca2-2018.