Bing Chen v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BING CHEN, No. 16-70215
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-207-843
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Bing Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
process violations. Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2004). We
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen’s motion to reopen
based on ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to show prejudice. See id. at
1088 (“A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a showing of
inadequate performance and prejudice.”); Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043
n.3, 1046-47 (9th Cir. 2010) (under REAL ID, even minor inconsistencies, when
viewed in light of the total circumstances, may undermine credibility; an
inconsistency no longer needs to go to the heart of a claim, but is of great weight
when it does). In light of this determination, we need not address Chen’s
contention regarding the BIA’s consideration of his failure to address the merits of
his claims for asylum and related relief in his motion to reopen.
We are not persuaded by Chen’s contention that the BIA, in noting that
Chen had not addressed certain findings or provided corroborating evidence, was
impermissibly requiring specific corroboration. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (“A
motion to reopen proceedings shall state the new facts that will be proven at a
hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or
other evidentiary material.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 16-70215