Stelian Marinov v. Eric Holder, Jr., 687 F.3d 365

Marinov, Bulgarian citizen, seeks review of BIA denial of motion to reopen in absentia removal.
He entered the U.S. in May 2005 as a nonimmigrant exchange visitor, later remained beyond authorized stay.
DHS served a Notice to Appear charging removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B).
Attorney of record admitted removability and moved venue to Chicago; hearing set for August 3, 2010.
Notice of the hearing was mailed to Marinov’s attorney, who attended; Marinov did not appear.
IJ ordered removal in absentia; Marinov later moved to reopen alleging lack of notice and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Marinov received proper notice of the hearing.	Marinov claims he did not receive actual notice.	Board found notice to counsel at correct address sufficed.	No reversible error; notice to counsel satisfied statutory notice.
Whether Lozada requirements were satisfied for ineffective assistance claim.	Marinov complied with Lozada’s steps via ARDC complaint.	Lozada requirements not satisfied; ARDC complaint separate from notice to counsel.	Lozada requirements not met; reopening denied.
Whether per se ineffective assistance exceptions apply.	Counsel's misrepresentations constitute per se ineffective assistance.	No Lozada-exemption established; not properly exhausted.	No exception; Lozada applied and denied.

Pervaiz v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2005) (notice to counsel suffices for alien notice)
Lin Xing Jiang v. Holder, 639 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2011) (Lozada criteria repeatedly upheld)
Ghaffar v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2008) (Board acts within Lozada-based discretion)
Stroe v. I.N.S., 256 F.3d 498 (7th Cir. 2001) (Lozada compliance required for relief)
Asaba v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2004) (bar complaint timing does not guarantee response)
Rodriguez-Lariz v. I.N.S., 282 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2002) (context on Lozada exceptions)