No. 09-1972-ag.United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 19, 2010.
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.
Ai Ting Li, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation; Jeffrey R. Meyer, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Ai Ting Li, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 10, 2009, order of the BIA denying her motion to reconsider. In re Ai Ting Li, a.k.a. Ai Qin Li, No. A077 297 765 (B.I.A. April 10, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
This Court reviews the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam); Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). A motion to reconsider must specify errors of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision and be supported with pertinent authority. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Here,
Page 6
the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Li’s motion to reconsider. In denying that motion, the BIA reconsidered its prior decision in light of Matter of Compean, 24 I. N. Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009), concluding that the change in law did not affect its prior decision. The BIA reasonably concluded that by filing her motion to reopen more than 90 days after her discovery of the alleged attorney misconduct, Li failed to exercise due diligence. This conclusion is consistent with our prior decisions. See, e.g., Rashid v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 127, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (in order to warrant equitable tolling, an alien is required to demonstrate “due diligence” in pursuing his claims during “both the period of time before the ineffective assistance of counsel was or should have been discovered and the period from that point until the motion to reopen is filed.”). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it found “no legal or factual defect” in its prior decision denying Li’s untimely motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel.[*]
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).