
    YAN ZHANG-XIANO, a.k.a. Xue Yun Yang, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-2149-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 18, 2010.
    Yung H. Hsu, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Richard Evans, Assistant Director; Brooke M. Maurer, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Yan Zhang-Xiano, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 21, 2009, order of the BIA denying her motion to reconsider. In re Yan Zhang-Xiano, a.k.a. Xue Yun Yang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 21, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

This Court ordinarily reviews the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.2006). Here, however, Petitioner does not challenge the BIA’s denial of her motion to reconsider, the only decision we are empowered to review. See Nwogu v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 80, 84 (2d Cir.2007) (denying petition where applicant failed to raise “any of the issues relevant” to BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen). Rather, Petitioner’s brief implies that the petition is a challenge to either the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s decision or the BIA’s denial of her previously filed motion to reopen. Even the portions of the brief that are arguably responsive to the decision actually before us fail to assert a meaningful legal argument appropriate for our review. Under such circumstances, we find that Petitioner has waived any challenge to the BIA’s denial of her motion to reconsider. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005); Nwogu, 491 F.3d at 84.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, 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 34.1(b).  