
    Bakamo DUKUREH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-1660-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 21, 2010.
    Ronald S. Salomon, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director; Nancy E. Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Bakamo Dukureh, a native and citizen of Gambia, seeks review of the March 28, 2009, order of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Bakamo Dukureh, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 28, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

When, as here, an alien files a timely petition for review from the denial of a motion to reconsider, but not from the underlying decision for which reconsideration is sought, we may review only the denial of the motion to reconsider. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir.2001). To the extent that Dukureh challenges the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider, we find that the BIA reasonably denied that motion because he failed to specify errors of fact or law in its prior decision as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). As the BIA found, it was entitled to apply its holding in Matter of A-K-, 24 I & N Dec. 275 (BIA 2007) rather than eases from other circuits that had been issued prior to that precedential decision.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have 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 DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 
      
      . Our recent decision in Kone v. Holder is not to the contrary. See 596 F.3d 141, 152-53 (2d Cir.2010). The petitioner in that case had suffered past persecution in the form of FGM. In light of that persecution, we encouraged the BIA to “consider [] whether the mental anguish of a mother who was herself a victim of genital mutilation who faces the choice of seeing her daughter suffer the same fact, or avoiding that outcome by separation from her child, may qualify as such ‘other serious harm,’ ” as specified in the humanitarian asylum regulation. Id. Here, however, Dukureh does not allege that he suffered past persecution.
     