Filed: Sep. 08, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1493 SHUI BING GAO, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-436-610) Submitted: August 21, 2006 Decided: September 8, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shui Bing Gao, Petitioner Pro Se. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Eric Warren Marsteller, Office
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1493 SHUI BING GAO, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-436-610) Submitted: August 21, 2006 Decided: September 8, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shui Bing Gao, Petitioner Pro Se. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Eric Warren Marsteller, Office o..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1493
SHUI BING GAO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-436-610)
Submitted: August 21, 2006 Decided: September 8, 2006
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shui Bing Gao, Petitioner Pro Se. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Eric
Warren Marsteller, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Shui Bing Gao, 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 a motion to reconsider a
prior order, which denied a motion to reopen an order affirming the
immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the
Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to
reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006); Jean v. Gonzales,
435
F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we deny the petition
for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Gao,
No. A79-436-610 (B.I.A. Mar. 30, 2006). 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 -