
    Hassan Ahmed SALEH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-3509.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 22, 2015.
    Shahla Khan, New York, N.Y., for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director; Tim Ramnitz, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: B.D. PARKER, PETER W. HALL, GERARD E. LYNCH, and Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Hassan Ahmed Saleh, a native and citizen of Yemen, seeks review of the March 26, 2012, and August 9, 2012, decisions of the BIA denying his third motion to reopen immigration proceedings and a subsequent combined motion for reconsideration and reopening, respectively. In re Hassan Ahmed Saleh, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 26, 2012; Aug. 9, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

We dismiss the petition to the extent it challenges the BIA’s March 26, 2012, decision. We lack jurisdiction to review that decision because the petition for review was not timely filed from that decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (setting forth 30-day deadline for filing a petition for review).

We deny the petition as to the August 9, 2012 decision. A motion to reconsider must specify errors of fact or law in the BIA’s decision and be supported with pertinent authority. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir.2001). In his motion to reconsider, Saleh identified no facts or law that the BIA had overlooked in denying his third motion to reopen. Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Ke Zhen Zhao, 265 F.3d at 90 (providing that a motion to reconsider must identify the errors of fact or law in the BIA’s decision).

Saleh only objected to the BIA’s determination that his unauthenticated evidence was insufficient to establish changed country conditions. As the BIA found, the letter Saleh submitted with the third motion to reopen was not notarized and discussed a feud that began in 1995. Therefore, it did not support a finding that conditions in Yemen had worsened since Saleh’s 2001 merits hearing, as would be needed to excuse the time and number limitations on his motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C); Matter of H-L-H & Z-Y-Z, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 215 (B.I.A.2010) (giving diminished evidentiary weight to letters from relatives because they were “interested witnesses who were not subject to cross-examination”), rev’d on other grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir.2012); see also Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir.2006) (noting that the weight accorded to the applicant’s evidence lies largely within the discretion of the agency).

Moreover, because Saleh’s final motion relied on new evidence, the BIA also construed the motion as a fourth motion to reopen. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening; the March 2012 letter purportedly from Saleh’s cousin was not signed or notarized, and gave no assurance of the author’s identity. See Matter of H-L-H & Z-Y-Z, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 215; see also Xiao Ji Chen, 471 F.3d at 342. Additionally, this letter discussed an ongoing feud between the Saleh and Alaar-aj families and thus did not show any change in conditions in Yemen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).

Finally, although Saleh argues that the BIA overlooked a country conditions report on Yemen with respect to the danger his family would face due to Islamic fundamentalism and anti-American bias in Yemen, Saleh did not raise any arguments before the BIA regarding these alleged country conditions. Therefore, the arguments have not been preserved for review. See Foster v. INS, 376 F.3d 75, 78 (2d Cir.2004).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

In addition, the pending motion for remand filed on March 24, 2015 is DENIED as any new evidence or request for a new form of relief should be presented to the BIA through a motion to reopen. See Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 260, 269 (2d Cir.2007).  