Zhao Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 457 F. App'x 302 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-1718
    ZHAO WEN CHEN,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals.
    Submitted:   November 16, 2011               Decided:   December 13, 2011
    Before KING, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per
    curiam opinion.
    Michael Brown, New York, New       York, for     Petitioner. Tony West,
    Assistant Attorney General,         William     C. Peachey, Assistant
    Director, Paul T. Cygnarowicz,     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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Zhao   Wen     Chen,    a     native     and    citizen     of   China,
    petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals (Board) denying his motions to reconsider and reopen.
    We have reviewed the administrative record and Chen’s claims and
    conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying
    Chen’s    motion    to     reopen    his    asylum     claim.     See     
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (a), (c) (2011).            We accordingly deny the petition for
    review in part for the reasons stated by the Board.                      See In re:
    Chen (B.I.A. June 2, 2010).              We dismiss the petition for review
    in    part   for    lack    of   jurisdiction         with   respect     to   Chen’s
    challenge to the Board’s denial of his motion to reopen and
    reconsider his claim for cancellation of removal.                      See 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (a)(2)(B)(i)      (2006).         Finally,    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 IN PART
    AND DISMISSED IN PART
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-1718

Citation Numbers: 457 F. App'x 302

Judges: King, Agee, Diaz

Filed Date: 12/13/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024