Opinion
16-958 NAC
05-31-2018
MOHAMED LEMINE ISSELMOU LEHBIB, AKA ISSELMOU LEHBIB MOHAMEDLEMINE, AKA ISSELMOU LEHBIB MOHAMED LEMINE, AKA MOHAMEDLEMINE ISSELMON, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
FOR PETITIONER: Bibiana C. Andrade, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director; Robert D. Tennyson, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 31st day of May, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
FOR PETITIONER:
Bibiana C. Andrade, New York, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT:
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director; Robert D. Tennyson, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
Petitioner Mohamed Lemine Isselmou Lehbib, a native and citizen of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, seeks review of a February 29, 2016, decision of the BIA denying Lehbib's motion for reconsideration. In re Mohamed Lemine Isselmou Lehbib, No. A201 118 249 (B.I.A. Feb. 29, 2016). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
We review the BIA's denial of motions to reconsider for abuse of discretion. Zhao Quan Chen v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 153, 154 (2d Cir. 2007). "The BIA abuses its discretion . . . when it provides no rational explanation, departs from established policies without explanation, or justifies its decision with only conclusory statements." Id. A motion to reconsider "request[s] that the Board reexamine its decision in light of additional legal arguments, a change of law, or perhaps an argument or aspect of the case which was overlooked." Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). "A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority." 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lehbib's motion to reconsider. Lehbib argues that he satisfied the procedural requirements for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim as set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I & N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), by notifying his former counsel of his ineffective assistance claim. This argument misses the mark. The BIA found compliance with Lozada, but denied reconsideration on another ground: Lehbib's failure to identify any prejudice.
Lehbib also argues that he was prejudiced because counsel prevented him from fully corroborating his claim. But Lehbib raised this same argument on appeal to the BIA and "[t]he BIA does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider where the motion repeats arguments that the BIA has previously rejected." Jin Ming Liu, 439 F.3d at 111.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk