Douglas Flores-Gonzalez v. Loretta E. Lynch
669 F. App'x 478
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Douglas Flores-Gonzalez sought review of the BIA’s denial of his untimely motion to reopen immigration proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Flores-Gonzalez argues his former attorneys failed to inform him about Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS), which could provide relief if a qualifying juvenile-court order were obtained.
- The BIA denied reopening, finding no evidence of a qualifying juvenile-court order and noting Flores-Gonzalez’s failure to comply with Lozada procedural requirements for ineffective-assistance claims.
- The government conceded the BIA did not address Flores-Gonzalez’s argument that counsel’s ineffectiveness prevented him from obtaining the juvenile-court order required for SIJS.
- Flores-Gonzalez also argued he was excused from Lozada compliance because the record plainly showed counsel’s ineffectiveness.
- The Ninth Circuit granted the petition and remanded for the BIA to address all arguments in the first instance, because the BIA’s decision omitted analysis on key claims and factual predicates that could affect the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA erred by denying reopening without addressing claim that counsel’s ineffectiveness prevented obtaining juvenile-court order for SIJS | Flores-Gonzalez: counsel’s failure deprived him of opportunity to pursue SIJS juvenile-court order | Government: evidence would not have supported SIJS juvenile-court order (no parental abuse/neglect/abandonment) | Court: Remand — cannot affirm on a ground BIA did not rely on; BIA must address this argument in first instance |
| Whether BIA properly found no prejudice from counsel’s failure to advise about SIJS | Flores-Gonzalez: prejudice includes lost chance to seek juvenile-court order | Government: no qualifying order would have issued, so no prejudice | Court: Remand — BIA did not analyze Flores-Gonzalez’s contention that ineffectiveness prevented obtaining the order |
| Whether Flores-Gonzalez’s failure to satisfy Lozada bars his ineffective-assistance claim | Government/BIA: Lozada requirements not met | Flores-Gonzalez: excused because ineffectiveness is plain on administrative record | Court: Remand — BIA failed to address the plain-error exception to Lozada compliance |
| Whether appellate court may resolve unaddressed factual/legal issues or must remand to BIA | N/A (party positions implicit) | N/A | Court: Remand — agency should resolve issues in first instance rather than court speculate |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez-Cruz v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2011) (courts should not deny petitions on grounds the agency did not rely upon)
- Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth Lozada procedural requirements for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518 (9th Cir. 2000) (Lozada noncompliance may be excused when ineffectiveness is plain on administrative record)
- Su Hwa She v. Holder, 629 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2010) (remand appropriate when agency decision lacks necessary analysis)
- Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2004) (when BIA reasoning is inadequate, court should remand for agency to address remaining issues)