LEHBIB AKA AKA AKA v. SESSIONS III (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

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.