Chuan Zhi Yu v. Mukasey , 262 F. App'x 566 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED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    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.              Therefore, we deny Yu’s
    petition for review.         We dispense with oral argument because the
    facts   and    legal   contentions     are     adequately       presented    in   the
    materials     before   the    court    and     argument    would    not     aid   the
    decisional process.
    PETITION DENIED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-1732

Citation Numbers: 262 F. App'x 566

Judges: Motz, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Traxler

Filed Date: 1/29/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023