Chen v. Atty Gen USA ( 2005 )

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-19-2005
Chen v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-2328
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Chen v. Atty Gen USA" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 823.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/823
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 04-2328
CHING CHUN CHEN,
Petitioner
v.
*Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent
*(Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 43(c))
____________
ON REVIEW FROM AN ORDER OF THE
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
DATED APRIL 15, 2004
(BIA No. A77-354-019)
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
July 15, 2005
Before: SLOVITER, McKEE and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: July 19, 2005)
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner, a Chinese national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal
and protection under the Convention Against Torture. At a hearing before an
1
Immigration Judge (IJ), he discussed his assistance to the Falun Gong and his alleged
persecution. The IJ found the testimony lacking in credibility.
Petitioner appealed to the BIA, but when he failed to timely file a brief, the
Board dismissed the appeal. Petitioner asked for reopening based on ineffective
assistance of counsel. The BIA denied the motion citing Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec.
637 (BIA 1988).
We have examined the petitioner’s contentions and find that they are
lacking in merit. In Lu v. Ashcroft, 259 F.3d 127 (3d Cir. 2001), we reviewed the Lozada
requirements for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel and found the standards to
be reasonable.
Petitioner has failed to meet the burden established in Lu. Accordingly, the
Petition for Review will be denied.
2