Chen v. Holder

Bd. erred in denying alien’s motion to reopen his removal proceedings, where alien alleged that his attorneys had mishandled his case by neglecting to offer available evidence to support alien’s asylum application. While record showed that alien had submitted two counterfeit birth control certificates of his alleged children in attempt to establish that return to China would subject him to persecution as violator of China’s one-child policy, remand was required, where Bd. ignored potentially convincing evidence contained in motion to reopen establishing that alien had fathered two children. Accordingly, Bd. should determine if alien’s attorneys incompetently neglected to offer favorable evidence that might have resolved inconsistencies in record identified by IJ, and whether IJ would have ruled against alien in light of new evidence.