From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rui v. Sessions

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 11, 2018
No. 18-1038 (4th Cir. Jun. 11, 2018)

Opinion

No. 18-1038

06-11-2018

JIANG DIAN RUI, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, New York, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director, Brooke M. Maurer, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.


UNPUBLISHED

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, New York, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director, Brooke M. Maurer, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Jiang Dian Rui, 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 the Board's order and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2017). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Jiang Dian Rui (B.I.A. Dec. 13, 2017).

Rui also challenges the Board's refusal to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen his proceedings. We lack jurisdiction to review how the Board exercises its sua sponte discretion. See Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 206-07 (4th Cir. 2016); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009). We therefore dismiss the petition for review in part. We grant Rui's pending motion to submit on the briefs and 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART


Summaries of

Rui v. Sessions

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 11, 2018
No. 18-1038 (4th Cir. Jun. 11, 2018)
Case details for

Rui v. Sessions

Case Details

Full title:JIANG DIAN RUI, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 11, 2018

Citations

No. 18-1038 (4th Cir. Jun. 11, 2018)