Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Zheng v. INS, 98-2480 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-2480 Visitors: 1
Filed: Apr. 21, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2480 DUN FANG ZHENG, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A71-956-044) Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Winston W. Tsai, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2480 DUN FANG ZHENG, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A71-956-044) Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Winston W. Tsai, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Karen Fletcher Torstenson, Assistant Director, Joan E. Smiley, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Dun Fang Zheng appeals the decision of the Board of Immi- gration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen his deportation proceedings. Our review of the record discloses that the Board did not abuse its discretion and its decision is without reversible error. Accordingly, we af- firm on the reasoning of the Board. Zheng v. INS, No. A71-956-044 (B.I.A. Sep. 23, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer