United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 26, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60632
Summary Calendar
MEI HUA CHEN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A98 880 761)
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner Mei Hua Chen seeks review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that denied her motion to reopen
removal proceedings. In April 2005, an Immigration Judge (IJ)
ordered Chen removed in absentia. In March 2006, after two prior
motions to reopen had been denied, Chen filed her third motion to
reopen. The BIA denied Chen’s third motion to reopen as
numerically barred pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) and also
noted that, even if the motion were not number barred, it would be
denied for failing to establish a claim of ineffective assistance
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
of counsel. Chen argues that the BIA erred in finding that she had
not established a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and
that, as a result, the BIA abused its discretion in finding her
motion numerically barred.
As Chen previously filed two other motions to reopen, her
third motion to reopen was barred by the numerical limitation set
forth in § 1003.2(c)(2), which permits only one motion to reopen.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen’s motion to
reopen. See Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000).
Furthermore, we agree with the BIA’s observation regarding Chen’s
failure to establish a viable claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel. Chen’s petition for review is
DENIED.
2