Filed: Sep. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1989 YUYING LIN, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: September 2, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, She
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1989 YUYING LIN, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: September 2, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Shel..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1989
YUYING LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: September 2, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Benjamin C.
Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R.
Goad, Assistant Director, Julia J. Tyler, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Yuying Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals denying as untimely Lin’s motion to reopen
her removal proceedings. We have reviewed Lin’s claims in
conjunction with the administrative record, and conclude that
the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as
untimely filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c)(2) (2015). We
therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by
the Board. See In re: Yuying Lin (B.I.A. Aug. 25, 2014). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2