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: 2003-11-10
Citations: 80 F. App'x 817
Docket Number: No. 03-1330
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: 80
Pages: 817–817

Head Matter:
Xue Tuan YAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-1330.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 27, 2003.
Decided Nov. 10, 2003.
Jim Li, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Leslie McKay, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
Xue Tuan Yan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board's order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Yan's motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2003); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. See In re: Yan, No. [ AXX-XXXXXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 27, 2003). 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
The Board could not determine whether Yan sought reconsideration of its order affirming the immigration judge's decision finding Yan removable and denying his asylum application as frivolous, or of its order denying his motion to reopen that proceeding. Therefore, the Board considered the motion as to each ruling.