Cases

SACK, Circuit Judge. Jian Wen Wang petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his motion to reopen consideration of his application for asylum pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2. Wang argues that his recent marriage and his new wife’s pregnancy constitute changed circumstances. Specifically, Wang argues that because—before she married Wang and while s

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Wen Shin Lin, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a May 24, 2006 order of the BIA affirming the January 20, 2005 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy K. Horn, denying petitioner’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. In re Lin, Wen Shin, No. A 70 170 185 (B.I.A. May 24, 2006), aff'g No. A 70 170 185 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 20, 2005). We

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioners Wen Xu and Jianqiu Chen, married citizens of the People’s Republic of China, seek review of a January 26, 2006, order of the BIA affirming the September 9, 2004 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Gabriel C. Videla denying Xu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Wen Xu a.k.a Jian Feng Xu, Jianqiu Chen a.k.a Jian Qiu Chen

SUMMARY ORDER Wen Xing Gao, pro se, petitions for review of the BIA’s August 5, 2005, decision denying his “Explanation” to his previous motions, which it construed as a motion to reconsider. In re Wen Xing Gao, No. A96001603 (B.I.A. Falls Church, Va. Aug. 5, 2005). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. A petition for review of a final order of removal and

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioners Dai Kuo Yung and Su Wen Ke, natives and citizens of China, seek review of a April 24, 2006 order of the BIA denying the Petitioners’ motion to reconsider the BIA’s March 12, 2002 decision, which denied as untimely their appeal of the August 1, 2001 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy Horn, denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioners Xue Wen Guan and Xu Guan, natives and citizens of the People’s Republic of China, seek review of an August 31, 2006 order of the BIA denying their motion to reopen. In re Xue Wen Guan & Xu Guan, a.ka. Xiong Zheng, Nos. A29 796 243 and A77 308 729 (B.I.A. Aug. 31, 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

LYNCH, Circuit Judge. Wen Zhong Li petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”). order removing him to China and denying his application for adjustment of status or voluntary departure. Li challenged the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) charge that he was removable because he had procured admission into th

SELYA, Circuit Judge.' This case presents a question of first impression in this circuit: when United *541 States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has approved an 1-130 “immediate relative” visa petition based on.an alien’s marriage to a United States citizen, does the immigration court,

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Ani Indrawati, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of a December 6, 2005 order of the BIA affirming the August 20, 2004 decision of Immigration Judge (“U”) George T. Chew denying petitioner’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ani Indrawati, No. A97 965 627 (B.I.A. Dec. 6, 2005), aff'g No. A97 965

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Ching Fung Siu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 15, 2007 order of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re Ching Fung Siu, No. A072 375 241 (B.I.A. Oct. 15, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for a

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Qing Hua Lin (“Lin”), a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the January 10, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the September 26, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy K. Horn, denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Qing Hua Lin, No. A95 673 387 (B.I.A. Jan. 10, 2008),

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Lizhu Chen, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 1, 2006 order of the BIA affirming the June 22, 2005 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson denying Chen’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and' relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lizhu Chen, No. A 98 593 084 (B.I.A. Nov. 1, 2006), aff'g No. A 98

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Qing Hua Lin (“Lin”), a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the January 10, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the September 26, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy K. Horn, denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Qing Hua Lin, No. A95 673 387 (B.I.A. Jan. 10, 2008),

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Ching Fung Siu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 15, 2007 order of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re Ching Fung Siu, No. A072 375 241 (B.I.A. Oct. 15, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for a

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Ming Hua Li, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of an April 6, 2006 order of the BIA affirming the November 19, 2004 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Noel Ferris denying petitioner’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and finding that Li filed a frivolous asylum application. In re Ming Hua Li, No. A77 293 734 (

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioners Bi Yun Zhu and Zongyi Zou, both natives and citizens of China, seek review of May 26, 2004 orders of the BIA affirming the September 22, 2003 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sarah Burr denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Bi Yun Zhu, Zongyi Zou, Nos. A78 720 144, A29 126 789 (B.I.A. May 26, 2004), <

ANN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge: *507The plaintiff Wen Dong Zhao brings this action tinder the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, seeking documents from the defendant United States Department of S

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Zhi Da, a/k/a Da Zhi Ye, a citizen of China, seeks review of a June 9, 2006 order of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Da Zhi Ye a.k.a. Zhi Da, No. A73 171 691 (B.I.A. June 9, 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Zhong Guang Sun v. U.S. De

521 F.Supp.2d 125 (2007) UNITED STATES of America v. Muhamed MUBAYYID, Emadeddin Z. Muntasser, and Samir Al-Monla a/k/a Samir Almonla, Defendants. Criminal No. 05-40026-FDS. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. November 5, 2007. *126 *127 *128 Al

520 F.3d 264 (2008) Luckson AUGUSTIN, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES, Respondent. No. 06-4744. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued January 31, 2008. Filed March 20, 2008. *265 Engy Abdelkader (Argued), Legal Services of New Jersey, Edison, NJ, for Petitioner. Peter D.