Filed: Oct. 20, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2203 AI QIN YANG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 20, 2009 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocely
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2203 AI QIN YANG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 20, 2009 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2203 AI QIN YANG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 20, 2009 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ai Qin Yang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying Yang’s motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and find no abuse of discretion in the denial of relief on Yang’s motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2009). We accordingly deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Yang (B.I.A. Dec. 6, 2007). 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