Liu Zeng Qiang v. Gonzales

Second Circuit

Liu Zeng Qiang v. Gonzales

144 F. App'x 185

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedSeptember 19, 2005

DocketDocket No. 03-4458

StatusPublished

This text of 144 F. App'x 185 (Liu Zeng Qiang v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Liu Zeng Qiang v. Gonzales, 144 F. App'x 185 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition be and it hereby is DENIED.

Liu Zeng Qiang petitions for review of a BIA order denying reconsideration of a prior order denying reopening of an order dismissing Liu’s appeal from an immigration judge order that directed Liu’s removal and denied Liu’s requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on petition for review and hold as follows.

BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied Liu’s petition for review because Liu failed to specify an error of fact or law in BIA’s prior order. See Zhao v. DOJ, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir.2001). We therefore deny the petition for review as well as Liu’s request for a stay of removal.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition be and it hereby is DENIED.

Liu Zeng Qiang petitions for review of a BIA order denying reconsideration of a prior order denying reopening of an order dismissing Liu’s appeal from an immigration judge order that directed Liu’s removal and denied Liu’s requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on petition for review and hold as follows.

BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied Liu’s petition for review because Liu failed to specify an error of fact or law in BIA’s prior order. See Zhao v. DOJ, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir.2001). We therefore deny the petition for review as well as Liu’s request for a stay of removal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 F. App'x 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liu-zeng-qiang-v-gonzales-ca2-2005.