Xiaobing Lin v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-2327 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2327 XIAOBING LIN, a/k/a a/k/a Xiaobin Lin, Xiao Bing Lin, a/k/a Xiao Bin Lin, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 28, 2014 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: Circuit Judges, April 30, 2014 and HAMILTON, Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew L. Guadagno, LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW L. GUADAGNO, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Keith I. McManus, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Xiaobing Lin, 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 deny the petition for review. We review the Board s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2013); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion finding that Lin was not prejudiced by counsel s failure to seek cancellation of removal and by the immigration judge s failure to advise Lin that he may be eligible for such relief. 320-21 (4th Cir. 2002). abuse its discretion See Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, We also conclude that the Board did not finding that Lin s new and previously unavailable evidence warranted reopening. We conclude that there is no merit to Lin s claims that the Board used the wrong standard of review or that it failed to consider all the evidence. Accordingly, dispense with contentions are oral we deny argument adequately the petition because presented in the the for facts review. We and legal materials before this court and argument would not 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.