The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
19-1377•Zhao Lin Chen v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General
19-1377Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 10, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1377
ZHAO LIN CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: August 7, 2019 Decided: September 10, 2019
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Zhao Lin Chen, Petitioner Pro Se. Jennifer R. Khouri, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Zhao Lin Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying Chen’s motion
to reopen. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen equitable
tolling on the basis that he was not reasonably diligent in pursuing his ineffective assistance
of counsel claim. We further conclude that because Chen did not file a new asylum
application with his motion to reopen, the Board did not abuse its discretion by denying
reopening based on changed circumstances in China. See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d
397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we deny in part the
petition for review. Lastly, we are without jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision
denying sua sponte reopening, and dismiss in part the petition for review. See Lawrence v.
Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 206 (4th Cir. 2016); Mosere, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009).
We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART,
DENIED IN PART
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.