Opinion ID: 796952
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Proceedings in the BIA

Text: 24 In his Brief in Support of Appeal Along With Special Request for Remand dated March 25, 2002, present counsel for Yang advanced three separate arguments. He first contended that the IJ erred in determining that Yang was not a credible witness and argued that Yang's testimony supported the claims of asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Counsel also argued in the brief that the case should be remanded to the IJ because the last page of the transcription of the IJ's oral decision was missing and because Yang was prejudiced by the IJ's presumption that trial counsel for Yang was competent, a presumption rebutted by the disbarment of Mr. Muto for malpractice related to immigration matters. 25 The BIA responded to the appeal in a Decision dated April 29, 2003. Addressing the issue of the missing last page of the IJ's Decision, the BIA noted that only the Final Order of the IJ was contained on the page that went missing. Moreover, the BIA found that Yang knew that his application had been denied because the Order was issued orally and was appealed from; that he was provided with all the papers containing the analysis and reasoning of the IJ, enabling him to put forth his grounds for appeal; and that, by virtue of the foregoing, Yang was not prejudiced by the missing page. 26 With respect to Yang's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the BIA found inadequate grounds for remand. Specifically, the BIA determined that Yang has not met any of the[ ] basic procedural requirements for alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and, moreover, does not allege how he was prejudiced by his former counsel's action or inaction. 27 Finally, the BIA determined that the Immigration Judge properly found that [Yang] failed to meet his burden of proving that he was or will be persecuted and/or tortured upon return to China. The BIA adopted the IJ's finding that Yang was often vague and evasive in describing his activities in China, and found that Yang failed adequately on appeal to explain [the] discrepancies noted by the IJ. Also adopted was the IJ's finding that Yang lacked credibility. Accordingly, the BIA concluded: Inasmuch as we are in agreement with the Immigration Judge, we adopt his decision and it is affirmed based upon and for the reasons set forth therein.