Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Xie v. Holder, 08-1951 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-1951 Visitors: 27
Filed: Jun. 23, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1951 XIANDONG XIE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 3, 2009 Decided: June 23, 2009 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark A. Goldstein, GOLDSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Mic
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1951 XIANDONG XIE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 3, 2009 Decided: June 23, 2009 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark A. Goldstein, GOLDSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Andrew B. Insenga, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Xiandong Xie, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen as untimely. We have reviewed the administrative 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), (c)(2) (2009). We accordingly deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Xie (B.I.A. July 29, 2008). 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
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