Pedro Vilarde Reyes v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that compliance with the Lozada requirements is not arbitrary or onerous where the underlying claims are controverted
• recognizing that the Lozada requirements are not rigidly applied where ineffective assistance is clear and obvious
• holding that second Lozada requirement was not satisfied where alien failed to provide evidence that counsel was informed of the ineffective-assistance claim and given an adequate opportunity to respond before alien filed the motion to reopen
• stating that petitioner’s carbon copy of former counsel on bar complaint was not sufficient notice
• stating that ineffective assistance of counsel may qualify as an exceptional circumstance, but denying relief because petitioner failed to comply with Matter of Lozada
• indicating that the Lozada factors are not strictly applied where counsel’s ineffective assistance is obvious and undisputed on the face of the record

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).