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 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals