
    KUAN JU ZHENG, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-0820-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Sept. 24, 2008.
    Charles Christophe, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
    Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel, John J.W. Inkeles, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: Hon. JON O. NEWMAN, Hon. ROGER J. MINER, Hon. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Kuan Ju Zheng, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the January 22, 2008 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Kuan Ju Zheng, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Jan. 22, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). “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.” Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir.2001) (internal citations omitted).

We find no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s denial of Zheng’s motion to reopen where the evidence he submitted related to the same claim the agency had already deemed not credible. See Kaur, 413 F.3d at 234 (finding that the BIA does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen where the evidence submitted with that motion relates to the same claim the agency found not credible in the underlying proceeding).

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. The 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(b).  