# Zhao Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr.

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · December 13, 2011 · 457 F. App'x 302

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/618818

## Case

- **Full name:** ZHAO WEN CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 13, 2011
- **Citations:** 457 F. App'x 302
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** King, Agee, Diaz
- **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/618818

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1718

ZHAO WEN CHEN,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: November 16, 2011 Decided: December 13, 2011

Before KING, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.

Michael Brown, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West,
Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant
Director, Paul T. Cygnarowicz, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Zhao Wen Chen, a native and citizen of China,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (Board) denying his motions to reconsider and reopen.

We have reviewed the administrative record and Chen’s claims and

conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying

Chen’s motion to reopen his asylum claim. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(a), (c) (2011). We accordingly deny the petition for

review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re:

Chen (B.I.A. June 2, 2010). We dismiss the petition for review

in part for lack of jurisdiction with respect to Chen’s

challenge to the Board’s denial of his motion to reopen and

reconsider his claim for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2006). Finally, 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 IN PART
AND DISMISSED IN PART

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/618818. Public record. Not legal advice.