Wen Hui Zhang v. Holder

Second Circuit

Wen Hui Zhang v. Holder

321 F. App'x 22

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 26, 2009

DocketNo. 08-3157-ag

StatusPublished

This text of 321 F. App'x 22 (Wen Hui Zhang 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

Wen Hui Zhang v. Holder, 321 F. App'x 22 (2d Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Wen Hui Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the June 5, 2008 order of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Wen Hui Zhang, No. A73 639 927 (B.I.A. June 5, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Where, as here, an alien files a timely petition for review from the denial of a motion to reconsider, but not from the underlying decision for which reconsideration is sought, we may review only the denial of the motion to reconsider. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir.2001). With respect to the denial of his motion to reconsider, Zhang’s sole argument is that the BIA abused its discretion in declining to sua sponte reopen his proceedings. We lack jurisdiction to review a decision of the BIA regarding whether to sua sponte reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir.2006); see also Cyrus v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 197, 202 (2d Cir.2007).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Wen Hui Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the June 5, 2008 order of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Wen Hui Zhang, No. A73 639 927 (B.I.A. June 5, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Where, as here, an alien files a timely petition for review from the denial of a motion to reconsider, but not from the underlying decision for which reconsideration is sought, we may review only the denial of the motion to reconsider. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir.2001). With respect to the denial of his motion to reconsider, Zhang’s sole argument is that the BIA abused its discretion in declining to sua sponte reopen his proceedings. We lack jurisdiction to review a decision of the BIA regarding whether to sua sponte reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir.2006); see also Cyrus v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 197, 202 (2d Cir.2007).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

321 F. App'x 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wen-hui-zhang-v-holder-ca2-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack