Petition for review of a final order of removal denying plaintiff’s second motion to reopen is denied where the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden under Lozada of providing sufficient detail of his counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness was not arbitrary or capricious, as the evidence plaintiff submitted for the purpose of establishing the claimed ineffectiveness did not describe the terms according to which the work was to be performed or how former counsel’s performance of the work was ineffective.
Read Punzalan v. Holder, No. 08-2277
Appellate InformationOn Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.Decided August 5, 2009
JudgesBefore Lynch, Chief Judge, Boudin and Lipez, Circuit JudgesOpinion by Lynch, Chief Judge.
CounselFor Petitioner: Lisa D. Dubowski and ASK Law Group.
For Respondent: Tim Ramnitz, Michael F. Hertz, and Shelley R. Goad, U.S. Department of Justice.
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
