Filed: Aug. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2255 HUI CHEN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 19, 2012 Decided: August 23, 2012 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Marotta, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD TARZIA, Belle Mead, New Jersey, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2255 HUI CHEN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 19, 2012 Decided: August 23, 2012 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Marotta, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD TARZIA, Belle Mead, New Jersey, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant At..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2255
HUI CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 19, 2012 Decided: August 23, 2012
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Marotta, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD TARZIA, Belle Mead, New
Jersey, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Derek C. Julius, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Glen T. Jaeger, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hui Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
denying her motion to reopen. We have reviewed the
administrative record and Chen’s contentions, and conclude that
the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen’s motion.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2012). We accordingly deny the
petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In
re: Chen, (B.I.A. Oct. 21, 2011). 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