Dulyan v. Gonzales
Dulyan v. Gonzales
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.