Filed: May 06, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1805 WEI YOU WU, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 29, 2010 Decided: May 6, 2010 Before MICHAEL, * GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wendy Tso, LAW OFFICE OF WENDY TSO, P.C., New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Mar
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1805 WEI YOU WU, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 29, 2010 Decided: May 6, 2010 Before MICHAEL, * GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wendy Tso, LAW OFFICE OF WENDY TSO, P.C., New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Mary..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1805
WEI YOU WU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 29, 2010 Decided: May 6, 2010
Before MICHAEL, * GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wendy Tso, LAW OFFICE OF WENDY TSO, P.C., New York, New York,
for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane
Candaux, Assistant Director, Aimee J. Frederickson, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
*
Judge Michael was a member of the original panel but did
not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a
quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Wei You Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s
decision denying his motion to reopen. We have reviewed the
administrative record and find no abuse of discretion in the
denial of relief on Wu’s motion. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(a),
1003.23(b)(1) (2009). We accordingly deny the petition for
review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Wu
(B.I.A. June 22, 2009). 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
3