Opinion
22-2172
06-16-2023
HE CHENG, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
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UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: May 19, 2023
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
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.
Before WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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