Filed: Apr. 19, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1145 SHAO YONG JIANG, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A72-782-404) Submitted: March 16, 2005 Decided: April 19, 2005 Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karen Jaffe, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant At
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1145 SHAO YONG JIANG, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A72-782-404) Submitted: March 16, 2005 Decided: April 19, 2005 Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karen Jaffe, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Att..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1145
SHAO YONG JIANG,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A72-782-404)
Submitted: March 16, 2005 Decided: April 19, 2005
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and DUNCAN, Circuit
Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Karen Jaffe, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant
Director, Song E. Park, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Shao Yong Jiang, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, petitions for review of a January 8, 2004 order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to
reopen. 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 reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004) (grant or denial of
motion to reopen is within the discretion of the Board); INS v.
Doherty,
502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Stewart v. INS,
181 F.3d 587,
595 (4th Cir. 1999). Therefore, we deny the petition for review.
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