Court Opinion

ID: 9402876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-17 21:00:33.029346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:03.175608
License: Public Domain

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                                            UNPUBLISHED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        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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