Case Name: Ana MAHU; Denis Igorevich Zernyukov, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-21
Citations: 543 F. App'x 315
Docket Number: No. 13-1503
Parties: Ana MAHU; Denis Igorevich Zernyukov, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 543
Pages: 315–315

Head Matter:
Ana MAHU; Denis Igorevich Zernyukov, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-1503.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 16, 2013.
Decided: Oct. 21, 2013.
Alexander J. Segal, Grinberg & Segal, P.L.L.C.. New York. New York, for Petitioners. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Gregory M. Kelch, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ana Mahu, a native and citizen of Moldova, and Denis Igorevich Zernyukov, a native and citizen of Russia, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying their motion to reopen. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including Zernyu-kov's affidavit and his documentary evidence and conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative findings of fact, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006), and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2013); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir.2009).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Mahu (B.I.A. Apr. 9, 2013). 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.