Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01475/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01475-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William P. Barr
Respondent
Jin Ming Chen
Petitioner
Qiu Yan Li
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1475

QIU YAN LI; JIN MING CHEN,

Petitioners,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: January 17, 2020 Decided: February 18, 2020

Before WYNN, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theodore N. Cox, New York, New York, for Petitioners. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 

Attorney General, Andrew N. O’Malley, Senior Litigation Counsel, Surell Brady, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1475 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/18/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Qiu Yan Li and her daughter, Jin Ming Chen (collectively “Petitioners”), natives 

and citizens of the People’s Republic of China, petition for review of an order of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying their motion to reopen.

On appeal, Petitioners challenge the agency’s refusal to exercise its sua sponte 

authority to reopen their proceedings. We generally lack jurisdiction to review how the 

agency exercises its sua sponte discretion. See Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 206 (4th 

Cir. 2016); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009). Even assuming we 

may review the Board’s exercise of sua sponte discretion when it is based on a faulty legal 

premise, see Lawrence, 826 F.3d at 207 n.5, or violates the Board’s “general policy” 

restricting its own discretion, see Sang Goo Park v. Attorney Gen., 846 F.3d 645, 652-56 

(3d Cir. 2017), Petitioners have failed to establish that either potential exception would 

apply here.

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. 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 DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1475 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/18/2020 Pg: 2 of 2