From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fortin-Rapalo v. Garland

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 22, 2021
No. 20-70094 (9th Cir. Sep. 22, 2021)

Opinion

20-70094

09-22-2021

GLENDA SUYAPA FORTIN-RAPALO; OBED ISAI AVILA-FORTIN, Petitioners, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted September 14, 2021

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency Nos. A212-950-248 Petitioners, A212-950-249

Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Glenda Suyapa Fortin-Rapalo and Obed Isai Avila-Fortin, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We grant the petition for review, and we remand.

The BIA abused its discretion when it denied reconsideration, in part, based on petitioners' failure to comply with the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), where ineffective assistance of prior counsel was apparent from the face of the record. See Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1072 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that failure to comply with the Lozada requirements is not dispositive where the ineffective assistance of counsel is plain on the face of the administrative record); see also Tadevosyan v. Holder, 743 F.3d 1250, 1252-53 (9th Cir. 2014) ("The BIA abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to the law, and when it fails to provide a reasoned explanation for its actions." (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)). Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. Petitioners' removal is stayed pending a decision by the BIA.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.


Summaries of

Fortin-Rapalo v. Garland

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 22, 2021
No. 20-70094 (9th Cir. Sep. 22, 2021)
Case details for

Fortin-Rapalo v. Garland

Case Details

Full title:GLENDA SUYAPA FORTIN-RAPALO; OBED ISAI AVILA-FORTIN, Petitioners, v…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 22, 2021

Citations

No. 20-70094 (9th Cir. Sep. 22, 2021)