
    PING LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-4100.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 11, 2013.
    
      Peter L. Quan, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director; Julie M. Wolf, Law Clerk; Arthur L. Rabin, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Present: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, PETER W. HALL, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Ping Li, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a September 19, 2012, decision of the BIA denying his motion for reconsideration. In re Ping Li, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Sept. 19, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration 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). A motion to reconsider must “specify the errors of fact or law in the [challenged BIA decision] and [ ] be supported by pertinent authority.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao v. Reno, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir.2001).

As Li timely petitioned for review of only the BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration, we are precluded from considering the merits of the underlying removal proceedings. See Jin Ming Liu, 439 F.3d at 111. However, in his brief, Li does not challenge the BIA’s denial of this motion and, instead, seeks review of the BIA’s earlier decision dismissing his appeal. Li has therefore abandoned any challenge to the denial of the motion for reconsideration, see Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 546 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005), the sole issue we have jurisdiction to review. This alone provides a basis for denying the petition for review.

In any event, the BIA’s denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion. In the motion, Li merely reiterated his previous argument that his detention and subsequent questioning established past persecution, but he did not identify any errors of law or fact. “The 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. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.  