Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Punzalan v. Holder, No. 08-2277

By FindLaw Staff on August 06, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Petition for review of a final order of removal denying plaintiff's second motion to reopen is denied where the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden under Lozada of providing sufficient detail of his counsel's alleged ineffectiveness was not arbitrary or capricious, as the evidence plaintiff submitted for the purpose of establishing the claimed ineffectiveness did not describe the terms according to which the work was to be performed or how former counsel's performance of the work was ineffective.    

Read Punzalan v. Holder, No. 08-2277

Appellate Information
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Decided August 5, 2009

Before Lynch, Chief Judge, Boudin and Lipez, Circuit Judges
Opinion by Lynch, Chief Judge.

For Petitioner: Lisa D. Dubowski and ASK Law Group.

For Respondent: Tim Ramnitz, Michael F. Hertz, and Shelley R. Goad, U.S. Department of Justice.

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard