On January 15, 2025, the Tenth Circuit granted our client’s petition for review, vacated the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of her motion to reopen, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The court did not itself grant reopening, asylum, or immigration status. This nonprecedential order may be cited for its persuasive value.
The case involved a missed appellate deadline after prior counsel became seriously ill during pregnancy and required an emergency delivery. Contigo Law asked the Board to accept the appeal based on exceptional circumstances. After the Board denied the motion to reopen, the client sought review in the Tenth Circuit.
Strickland v. Washington concerns ineffective assistance of counsel in criminal proceedings. Its familiar framework asks whether counsel’s performance was deficient and whether there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different absent counsel’s errors. That criminal-law framework is distinct from an immigration ineffective-assistance claim.
In immigration proceedings, Matter of Lozada sets out procedural requirements that can include an affidavit from the person affected, notice to prior counsel with an opportunity to respond, and a bar complaint or an explanation for not filing one. The applicable standard and procedure depend on the facts and posture of the immigration case.
Here, the Board concluded that the Lozada requirements were not met because the contents of the bar complaint were not provided, even though proof that it had been filed was submitted. The Tenth Circuit held that the Board abused its discretion by imposing an additional requirement that does not appear in Lozada or its interpreting decisions.
The remand means that further proceedings before the Board remain. This article does not describe a later outcome, and every matter turns on its own record and governing law.
Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.