
    Yue Zhen YANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. Zhao Lin, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 04-2262, 04-2265.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 18, 2005.
    Decided April 28, 2005.
    Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, Genevieve Holm, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Petitions denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated petitions for review, Yue Zhen Yang and Zhao Lin (“Petitioners”), wife and husband and natives and citizens of The People’s Republic of China, petition for review of orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying their motion to reopen. The Petitioners claimed reopening was warranted because of ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence and changed circumstances. In their petitions for review, the Petitioners limit review to the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. We deny the petitions for review.

We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); Yanez-Popp v. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th Cir.1993). A denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor motions to reopen. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc). We find the Board did not abuse its discretion.

Accordingly, we deny the petitions 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.

PETITIONS DENIED  