Filed: Apr. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1991 HONG QING HUANG, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 29, 2016 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore N. Cox, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Emi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1991 HONG QING HUANG, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 29, 2016 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore N. Cox, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Emil..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1991
HONG QING HUANG,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 29, 2016
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theodore N. Cox, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Benjamin
C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Emily
Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Sarah Pergolizzi, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Hong Qing Huang, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic 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 the Board’s order
and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in
denying the motion as untimely and number-barred. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2) (2015). We therefore deny the petition for
review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Huang
(B.I.A. Aug. 4, 2015). 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