GLENDA FORTIN-RAPALO V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 20-70094 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 22 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GLENDA SUYAPA FORTIN-RAPALO; OBED ISAI AVILA-FORTIN, No. 20-70094 Agency Nos. Petitioners, v. A212-950-248 A212-950-249 MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 14, 2021** Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. 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 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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. 2 20-70094

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.