Filed: Jan. 05, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1886 NAN CHEN, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-744-753) Submitted: December 15, 2006 Decided: January 5, 2007 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nan Chen, Petitioner Pro Se. Carol Federighi, Daniel Eric Goldman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT O
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1886 NAN CHEN, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-744-753) Submitted: December 15, 2006 Decided: January 5, 2007 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nan Chen, Petitioner Pro Se. Carol Federighi, Daniel Eric Goldman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1886
NAN CHEN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-744-753)
Submitted: December 15, 2006 Decided: January 5, 2007
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nan Chen, Petitioner Pro Se. Carol Federighi, Daniel Eric Goldman,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nan 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 a motion to reconsider a
prior order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his
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 Chen, No. A97-744-753
(B.I.A. July 14, 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 -