YIN TING LIAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent, 361 F. App'x 229

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Yin Ting Lian, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 25, 2006 order of the BIA denying her counseled motion to reconsider. In re Yin Ting Lian, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. July 25, 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lian’s motion to reconsider. 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 be filed with the BIA within 30 days after the mailing of the BIA decision being challenged. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(c)(6); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). There is no exception to the filing deadline for such motions. Matter of J-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 976, 978 (B.I.A.1997). It is undisputed that Lian’s motion to reconsider was untimely. However, as the Government asserts, Lian fails to challenge the BIA’s denial of her motion to reconsider as untimely. Because addressing this argument does not appear to be necessary to avoid manifest injustice, we deem any such argument waived. Yueqing Zhang v.

Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005). Lian’s waiver of the BIA’s finding that her motion was untimely is dispositive of the petition for review. 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(b). .

Rather than challenging the BIA's denial of her motion to reconsider, Lian argues at length that she was entitled to file a successive asylum application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(

D) and that she was eligible for relief based on the birth of her U.S. citizen children. Even if we were to reach these arguments, they are largely foreclosed by Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143 (2d Cir.2008) and Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir.2008).