
    YU CHEN WENG, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS, Respondent.
    No. 05-1289.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 26, 2006.
    Farah Loftus, Los Angeles, California, for Petitioner.
    
      Gregory A. White, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, Bruce A. Khula, Assistant United States Attorney, Cleveland, Ohio, for Respondent.
    PRESENT: Hon. JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Hon. REENA RAGGI, and Hon. PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, of this petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

Yu Chen Weng petitions for review of the February 2005 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.

This Court reviews the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam); Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 165 (2d. Cir.2004) (citing Brice v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 806 F.2d 415, 419 (2d Cir.1986)). An abuse of discretion may be found where the BIA’s decision “provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the Board has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Kaur, 413 F.3d at 233-34; Ke Zhen Zhao v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir.2001) (internal citations omitted).

The BIA’s decision, denying Weng’s motion to reopen, was not an abuse of discretion. A motion to reopen “asks that the proceedings be reopened for new evidence and a new decision, usually after an evidentiary hearing.” Zhao v. U.S. DOJ, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir.2001). The BIA correctly determined that Weng did not present any new evidence or materials with his motion to reopen to prove his practice of Falun Gong. Weng did not provide any corroboration or details about his practice of Falun Gong. Additionally, Weng did not explain why he had not presented this evidence at a previous hearing.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. Having 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 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(d)(1).  