Chuan Yu v. Michael Mukasey
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
January 10, 2008
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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Therefore, we deny Yu's
correctly applied the cited authority. petition for review. facts and legal before
We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the
contentions the court
decisional process. PETITION DENIED
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?