Sanusi v. Holder

SUMMARY ORDER Rasaq Opeyemi Sanusi, a native and citizen of Nigeria, seeks review of a July 15, 2009, order of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider and reopen. In re Rasaq Opeymi Sanusi, No. A076 186 829 (B.I.A. July 15, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case. Motion to Reconsider. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.2006); Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam). Because Sanusi merely raised arguments that both the agency and this Court had previously considered, and because he identified no factual or legal error in the BIA’s October 2008 decision, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to reconsider. See Jin Ming Liu, 439 F.3d at 111 (stating that the BIA “does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider” when the motion merely “repeats arguments that the BIA has previously rejected”); see also Sanusi v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 193, 198-99 (2d Cir.2006) (per curiam) (rejecting Sanusi’s claims that the IJ abused his discretion in refusing to grant further continuances for the submission of additional medical evidence). Motion to Reopen. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, mindful of the Supreme Court’s admonition that such motions are “disfavored.” Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992)). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that the article Sanusi submitted with his motion failed to establish changed conditions in Nigeria because the article discusses only generalized conditions of Sharia law in portions of Nigeria in 2002. Sanusi did not submit any evidence of conditions in Nigeria in 2008 (the time of his motion) or establish that conditions in Nigeria in 2008 had changed since the time of his hearing. See Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 257 (BIA 2007) (“there is nothing in the applicant’s submission that would indicate that the 1999 policy is a change from the previously annunciated policy”), aff'd, by Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir.2008). Therefore, the BIA reasonably determined that Sanusi had not established changed country conditions as a basis for reopening. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Cao v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 421 F.3d 149, 156 (2d Cir.2005) (stating that movants submitting material, previously unavailable evidence, bear the “heavy burden” of “demonstrating a likelihood that the new evidence presented would alter the result in the case”). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED 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).