SUMMARY ORDER

Yi Xing Qiu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the July 13, 2011 order of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Yi Xing Qiu, No. A089 009 110 (B.I.A. July 13, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

As Qiu timely petitioned for review of only the BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration, the merits of the underlying removal proceedings are not before us. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). A motion to reconsider must “specify errors of fact or law in the [challenged BIA decision] and ... be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001). We review the denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. Jin Ming Liu, 439 F.3d at 111.

Because Qiu’s motion to reconsider simply repeated his previously rejected argument that he had established past persecution based on his “other resistance” to China’s family planning policy, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying that motion. See id. To the extent Qiu contends that the BIA erred in failing to address his claim of economic persecution, his contention is unavailing. In fact, the BIA considered Qiu’s testimony that he was fined by Chinese authorities in connection with his attempt to register his second child, and reasonably found that the fine alone, which Qiu paid, did not threaten his life or freedom and thus did not constitute economic persecution. See Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 293 F.3d 61, 67 (2d Cir. 2002) (holding that, while economic deprivation may constitute persecution, an applicant must show at least a “deliberate imposition of a substantial economic disadvantage” to meet the relevant standard (internal quotation marks omitted)).

*640 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal is DISMISSED as moot, and the request for oral argument is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).