Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Marco Tulio Ramirez Samuel, A043 998 246 (BIA Aug. 2, 2013)

Marco Tulio Ramirez Samuel, A043 998 246 (BIA Aug. 2, 2013)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 520|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), on remand from the Ninth Circuit, returned the case to the immigration court to allow the respondent to apply for relief from removal upon finding he was potentially prejudiced by prior counsel's failure to pursue applications for asylum or adjustment of status. The decision was written by Member John Guendelsberger and joined by Member Garry Malphrus and Member Molly Kendall-Clark.
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), on remand from the Ninth Circuit, returned the case to the immigration court to allow the respondent to apply for relief from removal upon finding he was potentially prejudiced by prior counsel's failure to pursue applications for asylum or adjustment of status. The decision was written by Member John Guendelsberger and joined by Member Garry Malphrus and Member Molly Kendall-Clark.

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on Aug 09, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/29/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Mendez, Richard C., EsqLaw Oice of Richard C. Mendez105 West Alameda Ave Suite 230Burbank, CA 91502
U.S   
Executive Oce r Immigration Revew
Board ofImmigration ppealsOce of he Clerk
5107 Jcmrg Pke, Sit 2000 Fls Cc 'g 2204/
HSCE Oce of Chief Counsel
ADW10400 Rancho RoadAdelanto, CA 92301Name: RAMIREZ-SAMUEL, MARCO TU.A04399246Date of thisnotice22013
nclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in h above-rerenced case.nclosure
P Mb:h, G Kd-Ck yGdg h
Sincerel,
D
c
t
Donna CarrCief Clerk
wlli: k
Cite as: Marco Tulio Ramirez Samuel, A043 998 246 (BIA Aug. 2, 2013)
 
I
U.S.
Department of Jusce
Executve Oce r Immaion ReviwDecson of the Board ofmiaion AppealsFalls Chh, Vgna 
22041
File:A043 998 246 -Lancaster, CADat:In re: MARCO TLIO RAMIZ SAMUEL aka Marco Rairez IN REMOVL PROCEDGSMOTONON BEHALF OF RSPONTRichard endez, EsquieON BEHALF OF DS:Jonathon oestelAssistant Chief Counse
AUG
-
2 013
On Octobe 5 01, the United States Cour of Appeals  the inth Circuit granted thegoveent's uopposed motion to remand the ecod to his Bod. The ce had previoslybeen bee us on November 4, 01, at which time we denied the esondents motion toreopen poceedingsUpon reand, both aies have sbied supeena brengIn our oveber 4 201, decision we nd tat the espondent had not submiedscient evidence to sppo his claim that he was prejdiced by his rio atoeys allegedineective assisace of counsel (Bd ec at 1)
.
 See Matter ofLozada
9 I& Dec 63 7 (BIA988)
 a'
857 d 0 (st Ci 988);
 see also Matter of Assaad
23 & Dec. 553 (BIA2003) Specically, we und hat the while the espondent argued tat his pio atoey eedinnot psuing adjusment of sats, hs otion did not contain  applicaion r adjusent of statsnor did it conain other evidence that he is centy eligible r sch elief (Bd. Dec at  )n its otion to remand bee the inth Cicuit, he goeent noted that the respondent, in hismotion also alleged that he seed ineective assistance of counsel because his aoey iledto pursue an application r witholdng of eova om Guateala. The goveet rthe noted hat our previos analysis regarding pejudice was too esrictive, and hat he espondentneeded only to deonstate that his peious couses ineective assistance may have aectedhe outcoe of the proceedings.
 See Jturribarra

INS
321 F3d 889
(9
Ci. 003);
MaravillaMaravla

Ashcro
646 F.3d 855 (9th Cir 004)Given the totality of the cicusances, we wl vacate ou oveber 4 2011, decision andeand the ecord to he Iigation Cor to her assess the respondents eligbiiyr eief om reoval he respondent has sbitted evidence in subsatial compince wh
Matter ofozada, supra
ad his mti ws ed wth de diigence
 See Sngh
v.
Ascro
367 F3d 182,186
(9
Ci 2004)
 see also turrbarra

IS supra.
Moreove, he espondents pror aoey indicated that he espondent wanted to appy  asyl, wthoding of emoval, andpotectionnde the Convention Against ortue at his hearing on Mch 10, 20 ( at 7), butno appications wee eve pesented in cou.While we might disagree hat the espondentspior atoey had a duty to te the respondent to may his gifriend the ct eains hat theespondent may w be eigibe  adstet of sus in conunction with a waiver of inadmissibiliy psuant t section 12(h) of he ActGien these cicumstnces we nd hathe espondet's prio aoeys actions ay have affected he outcoe of his pceedings
 See
Cite as: Marco Tulio Ramirez Samuel, A043 998 246 (BIA Aug. 2, 2013)

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
jchin6516 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->