CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
MIGUEL ANGEL GUZMAN-TORRALVA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent. |
No. 21-3360 |
On Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals;
No. A 206 405 524.
Decided and Filed: January 13, 2022
Before: GILMAN, KETHLEDGE, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Miguel Angel Guzman-Torralva was ordered removed from
the country after he missed his hearing in immigration court. Now he seeks to reopen the
proceedings, claiming that the bad advice of his lawyer should excuse his absence. But GuzmanTorralva hasn’t met the requirements for reopening.
Under Matter of Lozada, a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel
must state whether the alien filed a formal bar complaint against his lawyer. 19 I. & N. Dec.
637, 639 (BIA 1988). If no complaint was filed, the motion must explain why not. Id. GuzmanTorralva didn’t file a bar complaint, so the question on appeal is whether his explanation is
adequate. Because we think Lozada requires more than a simple statement that the alien is “not
interested in filing a formal complaint,” we DENY the petition for review. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
DONALD RAY MIDDLEBROOKS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TONY PARKER, in his official capacity as Tennessee’s
Commissioner of Correction; TONY MAYS, in his
official capacity as Warden of Riverbend Maximum
Security Institution,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 20-5419 |
On Petition for Rehearing En Banc
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
No. 3:19-cv-01139—William Lynn Campbell, Jr., District Judge.
Decided and Filed: January 13, 2022
Before: MOORE, CLAY, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
ORDER
_________________________
The court received a petition for rehearing en banc. The original panel has reviewed the
petition for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered
upon the original submission and decision of the case. The petition then was circulated to the
full court. No judge has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc.
Therefore, the petition is denied. |
|