Osei v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that BIA abused its discretion when it departed from its prior practice of “evaluat[ing] motions to reopen exclusively on the factors set out in [established precedent]” without reasoned explanation
• noting that the BIA does not apply § 1003.2(c)(1) to motions to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel claims
• noting that the BIA does not apply § 1003.2(c)(1) to motions to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel claims
• discussing the Lozada requirements: providing a supporting affidavit, allowing former counsel the opportunity to respond, and indicating whether a disciplinary complaint has been filed
• discussing the preliminary requirements for such a claim under In re Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), including: (1) providing a supporting affidavit; (2) allowing former counsel the opportunity to respond; and (3

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).