Martinez-Hernandez v. Holder, No. 11-70492 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePetitioner seeks review of the BIA's order denying a motion to reopen on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner argued that counsel was ineffective for failing to seek cancellation of removal and for pursuing only adjustment of status. The court concluded that, even assuming inadequate performance by counsel, petitioner failed to make the necessary threshold showing that his claim for cancellation of removal was plausible. In this case, petitioner presented no argument or evidence tending to show exceptional or extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative, a requirement for relief under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(D). Accordingly, the court denied the petition.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel denied Javier Martinez-Hernandez’s petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying his motion to reopen on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The panel held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by rejecting petitioner’s argument that his counsel was ineffective for failure to seek cancellation of removal, because petitioner failed to make the necessary threshold showing that his claim for cancellation was plausible. MARTINEZ-HERNANDEZ V. HOLDER 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.