
    Rafael Antonio Torres PERALTA, Petitioner, v. Jeff SESSIONS, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    
    15-706
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    February 22, 2017
    FOR PETITIONER: Lawrence Spivak, Jamaica, NY.
    FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; John S. Hogan, Assistant Director; Samuel P. Go, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, GERARD E. LYNCH, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Jeff Sessions is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch as Respondent.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Rafael Antonio Torres Peral-ta, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, seeks review of a February 4, 2015, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Rafael Antonio Torres Peralta, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 4, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this ease.

As an initial matter, because Torres Per-alta has timely petitioned for review of the denial of a motion to reconsider, but not from the underlying decision for which reconsideration was sought, we review only the denial of his motion to reconsider. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cm. 2001). We have reviewed the denial of his motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 173 (2d Cir. 2008). “A motion to reconsider must specify errors of fact or law in the challenged BIA decision and must be supported by pertinent authority.” Id.; see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

Torres Peralta sought reconsideration of the BIA’s decision that found him removable for attempting to gain immigration benefits by entering into a fraudulent marriage and that denied cancellation of removal based on his failure to establish the requisite good moral character. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Torres Peralta failed to identify any error of law or fact in its prior decision.

Contrary to Torres Peralta’s contention, the agency did not ignore material evidence or deprive him an opportunity to explain inconsistencies in the record regarding the bona fides of his marriage. And thus he did not demonstrate an error of law to this extent.

Moreover, as the BIA noted, Torres Peralta was not prima facie eligible to adjust status based on a visa petition filed on his behalf by his U.S. citizen son because the agency was barred by statute from granting that petition. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1154(c) (barring approval of visa petitions on behalf of aliens who the agency has found previously engaged in marriage fraud for immigration benefits), 1255(a) (requiring an immediately available immigrant visa for adjustment of status). And, finally, because Torres Peralta admitted that he made a false statement to immigration officials regarding whether he was living with his wife, he did not demonstrate an error of law or fact in the agency’s determination that he did not demonstrate the requisite good moral character for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(B); see also Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 173.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. 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).  