Hugo Castillo-Perez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Lozada requirements are generally reasonable, but that full compliance is not required if the record independently shows that the “ineffective assistance” claim is legitimate and substantial
• holding that the appropriate remedy for a due process violation in a deportation proceeding was for petitioner to “receive a hearing under the law that applied to him at the time his original hearing occurred”
• holding that the appropriate remedy for a due process violation in a deportation proceeding was for petitioner to “receive a hearing under the law that applied to him at the time his original hearing occurred”
• noting that “a failure to comply with Lo-zada requirements is not necessarily fatal to a motion to reopen ... when ‘[tjhe facts are plain on the face of the administrative record’ ” (citation omitted)
• refusing to require Lozada compliance when \[t]he hearing record and briefing . . . make[] it perfectly clear\ that an alien received ineffective assistance of counsel
• noting that “the requirements of Lozada . . . need not be rigidly enforced” when “an adequate factual basis exists in the record for an ineffectiveness complaint and . . . the complaint is a legitimate and substantial one”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).