Case ID: f-appx_233/html/0728-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gurgen DULYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-70715.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 16, 2007.
    
    Filed May 25, 2007.
    Reynold E. Finnegan, Esq., Finnegan & Diba a Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Marie-Flore Y. Kouame, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Stacy S. Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gurgen Dulyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir.2004), we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

Although Dulyan’s motion to reopen did not comply with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), the ineffective assistance of counsel is clear from the record because Dulyan’s attorney indicated in the notice of appeal that a separate brief would be filed and failed to file the brief. See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1227 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that Lozada requirements need not be rigidly enforced where ineffective assistance of counsel is apparent from the record). As a matter of law, the attorney’s failure to file a brief resulted in prejudice to Dulyan.

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.