Filed: Jul. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2063 GUIQIU GAO, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 19, 2019 Decided: July 2, 2019 Before KEENAN, WYNN, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dayna Wheatley, WHEATLEY IMMIGRATION LAW, LLC, New Orleans, Louisiana, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney Genera
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2063 GUIQIU GAO, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 19, 2019 Decided: July 2, 2019 Before KEENAN, WYNN, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dayna Wheatley, WHEATLEY IMMIGRATION LAW, LLC, New Orleans, Louisiana, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2063
GUIQIU GAO,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: June 19, 2019 Decided: July 2, 2019
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dayna Wheatley, WHEATLEY IMMIGRATION LAW, LLC, New Orleans, Louisiana,
for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant
Director, Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation,
Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Guiqiu Gao, 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 as untimely and numerically barred and for failure to set forth a prima facie case
for relief. We have reviewed the administrative record and Gao’s claims and conclude
that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(a) (2019); Mosere v. Mukasey,
552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). We
accordingly deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re
Gao (B.I.A. Aug. 10, 2018). 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