Case Name: XUE TUAN YAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-23
Citations: 114 F. App'x 90
Docket Number: No. 04-1484
Parties: XUE TUAN YAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 90–91

Head Matter:
XUE TUAN YAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-1484.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 10, 2004.
Decided Nov. 23, 2004.
Charles Christophe, Christophe & Associates, P.C., New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan F. Potter, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Xue Tuan Yan, 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 third motion to reopen. We have reviewed the record and deny the petition for review.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion by the Board. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir.1999). The denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate such motions and the applicable regulations disfavor them. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc). We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board's decision and find no abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED