Montes-Lopez v. Holder

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a non-citizen “who shows that he has been denied the statutory right to be represented by counsel in an immigration proceeding need not also show that he was prejudiced by the absence of the attorney”
• identifying this circuit as one that “require[s] a showing of prejudice” for “violations of the right-to-counsel regulations” and citing Delgado-Corea
• “It is not necessary to continue hearings indefinitely merely because an alien says that he or she cannot find counsel.”
• “No showing of prejudice is required, however, when a rule is ‘intended primarily to confer important procedural benefits upon in-div[i]duals” or “when alleged regulatory violations implicate fundamental statutory or constitutional rights.’ ”
• \[W]hether the IJ's denial of a continuance violated Petitioner's statutory right to - 19 - counsel . . . is a question of law which we review de novo.\
• “When this court concludes that an agency has not correctly applied controlling law, it must typically remand, even if [it] think[s] the error was likely harmless.” (citing INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-17 (2002) (per curiam))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).