Punzalan v. Holder, No. 08-2277

Petition for review of a final order of removal denying plaintiff's second motion to reopen is denied where the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden under Lozada of providing sufficient detail of his counsel's alleged ineffectiveness was not arbitrary or capricious, as the evidence plaintiff submitted for the purpose of establishing the claimed ineffectiveness did not describe the terms according to which the work was to be performed or how former counsel's performance of the work was ineffective.    

Read Punzalan v. Holder, No. 08-2277

Appellate Information
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Decided August 5, 2009

Judges
Before Lynch, Chief Judge, Boudin and Lipez, Circuit Judges
Opinion by Lynch, Chief Judge.

Counsel
For Petitioner: Lisa D. Dubowski and ASK Law Group.

For Respondent: Tim Ramnitz, Michael F. Hertz, and Shelley R. Goad, U.S. Department of Justice.