Liang v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Liang v. Gonzales

161 F. App'x 722

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided January 12, 2006·No. No. 03-72961; Agency No. A75-756-705·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Ning Liang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider its prior order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Liang’s motion for reconsideration because the motion failed to identify any legal or factual errors in the underlying decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (“A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Ning Liang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider its prior order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Liang’s motion for reconsideration because the motion failed to identify any legal or factual errors in the underlying decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (“A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Liang v. Gonzales, 161 F. App'x 722 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

161 F. App'x 722 (Liang v. Gonzales) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related