Filed: Jan. 07, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1091 JIN XIU CHEN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: January 7, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jin Xiu Chen, Petitioner Pro Se. Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jem Colleen Sponzo, M. Jocelyn Lopez
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1091 JIN XIU CHEN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: January 7, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jin Xiu Chen, Petitioner Pro Se. Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jem Colleen Sponzo, M. Jocelyn Lopez ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1091 JIN XIU CHEN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: January 7, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jin Xiu Chen, Petitioner Pro Se. Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jem Colleen Sponzo, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jin Xiu Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying Chen’s motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and find no abuse of discretion in the denial of relief on Chen’s motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2009). We accordingly deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Chen (B.I.A. Dec. 26, 2007). 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
