Filed: Jul. 30, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1098 GUAN EN YE, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: July 16, 2008 Decided: July 30, 2008 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Romben Aquino, FERRO & CUCCIA, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1098 GUAN EN YE, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: July 16, 2008 Decided: July 30, 2008 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Romben Aquino, FERRO & CUCCIA, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assis..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1098
GUAN EN YE,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 16, 2008 Decided: July 30, 2008
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Romben Aquino, FERRO & CUCCIA, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn
Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Mona Maria Yousif, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Guan En Ye, 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 to sua sponte reopen his
removal proceedings. We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s
discretionary authority to sua sponte reopen proceedings. See
Tamenut v. Mukasey,
521 F.3d 1000, 1004 (8th Cir. 2008) (collecting
cases). 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
- 2 -