Case ID: f-appx_437/html/0589-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ezz-Eldin MOHRAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71464.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 9, 2011.
    Ezz-Eldin Mohran, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
    Lynda Do, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ezz-Eldin Mohran, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo legal and constitutional claims, in-eluding claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We grant the petition for review.

The BIA abused its discretion in denying Mohran’s motion to reopen by requiring strict compliance with the procedural requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988). The ineffective assistance of Mohran’s pri- or counsel was plain on the face of the record where the record shows prior counsel mistakenly failed to request voluntary departure before the immigration judge issued his decision. See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1227 (9th Cir.2002).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Mohran’s remaining contentions.

We deny Mohran’s motion to submit evidence into the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.