Chuan Yu v. Michael Mukasey, No. 07-1732 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1732 CHUAN ZHI YU, Petitioner, versus MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A73-562-531) Submitted: January 10, 2008 Decided: January 29, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Winston Wen-Hsiung Tsai, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Russell J.E. Verby, Shelley R. Goad, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Chuan Zhi Yu, a native and citizen of the People s Republic of China, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge s order pretermitting her application for adjustment of status and ordering her removal from the United States. We deny her petition for review. Yu entered the United States on a K-1 nonimmigrant fiancé visa. She did not marry the sponsor of that visa, and now seeks adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) (2000) based on an approved labor certification. Relying on its interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1255(d) (2000), and our decision in Markovski v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 108 (4th Cir. 2007), the Board found Yu ineligible for adjustment of status on any basis other than marriage to the K-1 sponsor within ninety days of entry. We conclude that the Board correctly applied the cited authority. petition for review. facts and materials legal before Therefore, we deny Yu s We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED - 2 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
