He Cheng v. Merrick Garland

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2172 Doc: 22 Filed: 06/16/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-2172
HE CHENG,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: May 19, 2023 Decided: June 16, 2023
Before WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Ou Jia, JIA LAW GROUP, P.C., New York, New York, for Petitioner. Brian
M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant
Director, Thankful T. Vanderstar, Senior Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2172 Doc: 22 Filed: 06/16/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
He Cheng, 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 his motion to
reopen. We have reviewed the administrative record and Cheng’s claims and conclude that
the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening. Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227,
234 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988)); see Prasad v.
Holder, 776 F.3d 222, 228 (4th Cir. 2015) (reaffirming that the Board may deny a motion
to reopen “solely on the ground that [the noncitizen] has not established prima facie
eligibility for” the relief sought). Regarding Cheng’s challenge to the Board’s denial of
his request for sua sponte reopening, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2023), we lack jurisdiction
to review that decision, see Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 206-07 (4th Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re Cheng (B.I.A. Oct. 28,
2022). 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