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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Angela Reyes Rodriguez de Jesus, A087 321 551 (BIA Mar. 20, 2014)

Angela Reyes Rodriguez de Jesus, A087 321 551 (BIA Mar. 20, 2014)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 422 |Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded the record for further consideration of the respondent's motion to reopen based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. The Immigration Judge had faulted the respondent for filing a complaint against her former attorney with the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands rather than the Virgin Islands Bar Association, but the Board stated that the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), “need not be rigidly enforced where their purpose is fully served by other means.” The decision was written by Member Elise Manuel.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded the record for further consideration of the respondent's motion to reopen based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. The Immigration Judge had faulted the respondent for filing a complaint against her former attorney with the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands rather than the Virgin Islands Bar Association, but the Board stated that the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), “need not be rigidly enforced where their purpose is fully served by other means.” The decision was written by Member Elise Manuel.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center on Mar 27, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

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

06/05/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Gonzalez-Rucci, Rosara L osaura Gonzalez-cci P.O. Box 6363 Sn Ja R 00914
U m  
Executive Ofce r Imgraon Revew
Br  mmigt Appels Oce  he Cerk
507 eesburg ik, ute 2000 ls hc Vrg 0530
HSICE Oce of he Cosel SAJ 7 Tbonuco t ue 300 (m 313) Guynabo R 00968 Name: RODRGUEZ DE JEU AGEL ..  A 087-321-55 Dae o hs oice: 20201
ncosed s a copy o he Board's decso d orer  he bove-reereced case. nclosre
P : M 
Q MZ
Scerel,
D
C
Don Carr he lerk
   k
%

_:
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
Cite as: Angela Reyes Rodriguez de Jesus, A087 321 551 (BIA Mar. 20, 2014)
 
U Dpn  sic
Dcson of e Bod of  grao Appel
Executive
O r
Imigation Reew Fal Chu,
rgina

Fle:  A087 321 551 St om, V n e ANGEL REYES RODRGUEZ DE JESUS N REMOVL PROCEEGS  APPEAL Date ON BEF O RESONDENT Roaa Gozalez Rucci, Equie ON BEAL OF DS Joe va  At Cef Cone  APCATON: Reconideation
MR
2
 
e eondt, a native o e Dominic Rebc d a citiz of e Need ile, a e deciion of the aon Judge, maied Jy 20, 202, denyng e  moion o ode. The Dt of omeand Secuity i opo to e eond' ae. e ecod wi ded n ch 7, 202, e epondent aped b te mmiatio udge d wa ted  the vlege of votly deng e nted Sate on o bee ly 5,
·
2012
See
ection 240B of the mmiation d Natonity Act, 8 USC
229c. On Ail 9, 202, e  eondent ld a mey moton to eoen claming ineectve atce o coune witegd  to te poceig o mmt va etion he hbd ad led on e behaf.
e mmiaton Judge dn e moton to eoen n a decion le on Al 24, 202. On ay 22, 202, the eondent move  econeaton. The miaon Judge' decion to deny e eondent' moton o econid  e ubjet o e eent ape.  A motion to econid i aen' ootunty to pec he o of aw o 
 te  evo ode d not ooit to een new evdc, no ootnty to eiteae o exand uon gment tat have been eviouly ied and conideed.
See Matter

SG
24 &N Dec 56

2006
Maer

Ce,
20 &N ec. 399

99. e e ct,  v--v a moton to eoen, allow  alien who  ubject to  ode of emov to t new evdence, e eondent ued e nge opoti to een new evdce when he ed he na motion to eo on Al 9, 202
See
ection 240(c(7( of e Act, 8 U.S.C.
229)(7)A
A
u, to e extent at the eonent ach evdene to e moion to  conide d ha peented vnc o  od o ape, we concue
at
 e peeaon of aid evdce bequen to e ling of e eondent' motion to eopn i nmbebed
See Matter

Oprh,
23 &N Dec 1 (BA 2000.
By ng h moton to  tn e volt dee iod, e t of volty de temnate autoaialy d e ation Judge teae ode of oval o e  Neand nie o e Domnican Rubc took eect mmediatey
See
8 C.F.R.

240.26(b((ii}, ( (.
Cite as: Angela Reyes Rodriguez de Jesus, A087 321 551 (BIA Mar. 20, 2014)
 
 A08 321 551
'
Whie e presentaon o additiona evidence is numberbaed, we conclude ta it is appropriate to rd e record to e miation Judge in order to her consider the mets o te reondt's moton to reconsider In denyng e respondent's otion to reconsider, the Iiation Judge nd no ega or ca eor i er prior onsion at e respondent ad not coplied  e evdty tdds set r n
Mtter of Lozd,
19 I&N Dec 63 7 (IA 988) Under
Mtter of Lozd,
a
 otion to reopn ased upon a claim of neecve sistace o cose requres () at e otio be suppored by  aavit of e aegedly aggieved resondent setting  in detai te aeeent at as ent nto wt counsel wi resect to e actons to be t d wht representaions cose dd or did no me to e resondent  s regd (2) t counsel wose inteity or competene is eing impued be ifoed o e alegaons leveled aganst im and be ven n oppornity to reond d (3)  t e moon reect ether a comlnt has een ed i apropite displi auories i reet to y violaon o cosels ec or g reosilities d if not,  hy not He in suppo of rpng e reondent prented a perona adavt a py of a mplt le dressed to e Supre Co o e Vr Islds , tro une idated at e mpat le ad b ed and h r conel had  no of  te compt eing ed n h moon to reconsd e rspoen identi evdce at she a preio oed in support of reopening and gd at er otion to rpen substly mple w
Lod'
evidetiary requits e Immaon Jdge in dening te respondt's motio to reconsider uted her r not preenng evde t e coplnt ler had een acually led d quetioned he  as prope o le  letter i  e Supre Co o e Vrgn Islds ( oppos irgin sds Bar Assoiaon) (J at 1 ) e
Lozd
reieets e eant to see as a esod d a screenin ecnis to  elp miation Judges d is Bod assess te substti nb of ineective sistance clais that they receve but need not be ridy enrced where er puose s ly sed by oer es
Fdig
v.
S
Att  Gen.,
488 3d 142 156 (3d Cir 2007) "[O]nly n rare circustces have co resed to reopen imiation proceedings soe becaue a alien fed to e a b coplnt
Xu Yong u
v.
Ashcro
259 3d 127, 134 (3rd Cir 2001) However, in e prest case the Immiaion udge appes to hve onuded at e respondt was reuir to sctl comply wit
Lozd
in order to have e cms consided  As e respondt need oy estalis tat te evideny requremnts set r in
Lozd
 have  been ly seed by oth meas, we wll reand e record r te maton Judge to he consider e issue o wheer e respondet has suciety coped w te eshod evidentiy reuiemets set  i
Mtter of Lod
such t e uering meits of her ineecve assistance o nse clms sould be considered ner decision ding e respondent's motion to reopen e Imaton Judge so hed  that the respondet had not estalis tat te esult in is case ould have been dierent i e eos had not occ
ee Fdig
v.
US tt Gen, sur,
at 159 (olding at  alien clming ineective assisnce of counsel i remova pceedgs mst show tat there w a reasonable ikeihood at e reult would have been dierent f the clmed eor had not occ);
Mter of ozd supr
at 38 ("One must sho, moreov, that he was prudiced  by is rrenatves perfoance) However, e Iaton Judge did not address is  por odig in her deision to deny e resondent's motion to recoder We obsee at in suppor of her caim tat she as prejudiced y er er cousel, e respondent ged i her 2
Cite as: Angela Reyes Rodriguez de Jesus, A087 321 551 (BIA Mar. 20, 2014)

You're Reading a Free Preview

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