# Fan v. Gonzales

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · June 13, 2005 · 133 F. App'x 884

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8433874

## Case

- **Full name:** Qian FAN, a/k/a Kunio Otsuka v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 13, 2005
- **Citations:** 133 F. App'x 884
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, Wilkinson, Williams
- **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/8433874

## Opinion text

PER CURIAM:
Qian Fan, 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 Fan’s second, identical motion to reopen. We agree with the Board that the motion should be construed as Fan’s second motion to reconsider. As such, it exceeds the number limitations of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(5)(A) (2000) and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (b)(2) (2005). Even construing the motion as a motion to reopen, it is beyond the ninety-day deadline of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(6)(C)(i) (2000) and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2) (2005). Therefore, we conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (a) (2005); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 , 112 S.Ct. 719 , 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir.1999). We deny the petition for review; 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8433874. Public record. Not legal advice.