Filed: Sep. 24, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1160 YU CHEN, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A77-713-644) Submitted: September 8, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Senior
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1160 YU CHEN, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A77-713-644) Submitted: September 8, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Senior ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1160
YU CHEN,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A77-713-644)
Submitted: September 8, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Senior
Litigation Counsel, William C. Minick, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION
LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Yu Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of
China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying as untimely her motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for
review on the reasoning of the Board. See In re: Chen, No.
A77-713-644 (B.I.A. Jan. 13, 2004); see also William v. INS,
217
F.3d 340, 342-43 (5th Cir. 2000). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 2 -