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.