he had already filed a motion to reconsider is supported by the record. Jiang’s first motion was filed and titled as a “Motion to Reconsider”; had it been a motion to reconsider, it would have automatically been rejected (as the BIA observed). That the BIA gave Jiang the benefit of the doubt by considering his first motion also as a motion to reopen (rather than simply denying it peremptorily as a motion to reconsider) does not afford a second opportunity to file essentially the same motion, in contravention of BIA regulations. Moreover, the BIA’s opinion on the first motion concluded: “[t]he motion to reopen and reconsider is denied.” In any event, Jiang’s second motion presents essentially the same meritless arguments as his first. See Waldron v. INS, 17 F.3d 511, 518 (2d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Jiang argues also that he had ineffective
holding that although no governmental action contributed to the eyewitness identification and no due process rights were implicated fairness required preclusion of the evidence holding that where no factual dispute is raised no hearing is required holding that district court has no jurisdiction to take further action where there was no remand order holding parental rights are constitutionally protected fundamental interest holding no remand required where no fundamental rights are implicated