Case Explained: IPINA V. BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-10

The ninth-circuit granted Kevin Alexander Ipina’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order that had dismissed his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The court held that the Immigration Judge violated Ipina’s statutory right to counsel rooted in the Due Process Clause by failing to provide him a reasonable time to obtain representation given significant barriers posed by his detention during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Applying a fact-specific inquiry weighing factors such as the realistic time needed to secure counsel, the number of continuances granted, and specific barriers like incarceration and language difficulties, the court found that granting only two continuances and twenty-one business days was insufficient. Furthermore, the court determined that Ipina’s equivocal statement proceeding pro se did not constitute a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to counsel because the Immigration Judge failed to inquire into the implications of self-representation or inform him of his right to request further delays. Consequently, the court remanded the case to the Immigration Judge for a new hearing on the denial of counsel claim, declining to address Ipina’s other challenges, while denying his motion to stay removal pending the issuance of the mandate.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.