Edgar Hernandez-Gil v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “the statutory right to counsel exists so that an alien has a competent advocate acting on his or her behalf at removal proceedings”
• holding denial of a continuance violated a petitioner’s statutory right to counsel when an IJ “conduct[ed] the merits hearing without taking reasonable steps to permit counsel to participate”
• holding denial of a continuance violated a petitioner’s statutory right to counsel when an IJ “conduct[ed] the merits hearing without taking reasonable steps to permit counsel to participate”
• finding prejudice because “[a] trained immigration lawyer ... is more familiar ... with the standards and factors an IJ examines” and could have presented evidence more effectively
• discussing the statutory right to counsel under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(b)(4)(A) and 1362
• “The high stakes of a removal proceeding and the maze of immigration rules and regulations make evident the necessity of the right to counsel.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).