# Mei Jing Guo v. Mukasey

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · September 12, 2008 · 293 F. App'x 220

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1026622

## Case

- **Full name:** MEI JING GUO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 12, 2008
- **Citations:** 293 F. App'x 220
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Michael
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1026622

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1254

MEI JING GUO,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: August 28, 2008 Decided: September 12, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Brown, LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL BROWN, New York, New York,
for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Alison Marie Igoe, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jeffrey L.
Menkin, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Mei Jing Guo, a native and citizen of the People’s

Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the

immigration judge’s denial of her motion to reopen. We have

reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find no abuse of

discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1)(iv) (2008) (setting forth

standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review

for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Guo (B.I.A. Jan.

30, 2008). 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

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1026622. Public record. Not legal advice.