UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2264
YUE ZHEN YANG,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 04-2265
ZHAO LIN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-309-174; A79-309-175)
Submitted: April 13, 2005 Decided: April 28, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioners. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Genevieve Holm, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated petitions for review, Yue Zhen Yang
and Zhao Lin (“Petitioners”), wife and husband and natives and
citizens of The People’s Republic of China, petition for review of
orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying their
motion to reopen. The Petitioners claimed reopening was warranted
because of ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered
evidence and changed circumstances. In their petitions for review,
the Petitioners limit review to the issue of ineffective assistance
of counsel. We deny the petitions for review.
We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for
abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004); INS v. Doherty,
502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Yanez-Popp v. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234
(4th Cir. 1993). A denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed
with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not
contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor
motions to reopen. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990)
(en banc). We find the Board did not abuse its discretion.
Accordingly, we deny the petitions 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.
PETITIONS DENIED
- 3 -