Marco Correa-Rivera v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the third Lozada requirement is “hortatory,” demands no “probative evidence” of a filed complaint, and is satisfied by attaching “a copy of the very complaint”
• explaining that the affidavit requirements of Lozada are “quite specific and can be satisfied only by some sort of document or action that is external to the motion”
• explaining that demonstration of exposure to a malpractice claim is sufficient
• forgiving the petitioner’s “procedural misstep” because “[a]ppeals asserting [IAC] claims . . . are effectively motions to reopen”
• explaining that “a motion to reopen [before the BIA] is the only avenue ordinarily available to pursue ineffective assistance of counsel claims” because it typically involves “reconsideration on the basis of . . . evidence not available at the time of the original decision”
• “The most plausible and straightforward reading of ‘reflect’ is that the motion should somehow disclose whether petitioner has filed a complaint with the state bar.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).