Background
Petitioners, natives of Honduras, sought asylum and related relief in removal proceedings. The Immigration Judge denied their application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the decision on December nineteenth, two thousand and twenty-three. The BIA notified the petitioners’ attorney via email and mailed a courtesy copy to the petitioners. The attorney failed to inform the petitioners of the decision and the thirty-day deadline to file a petition for review until after the deadline had passed. The petitioners filed a motion to reopen, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, which the BIA denied.
The court’s reasoning
The panel held that the BIA abused its discretion by concluding it lacked authority to consider ineffective assistance claims involving conduct before a different tribunal. The court relied on precedent establishing that the BIA has discretion to review such claims. Additionally, the court found that service of a courtesy copy of the decision was insufficient to rebut the presumption of prejudice. The court reasoned that it was unreasonable to expect noncitizens to understand the decision and decipher filing deadlines without the guidance of retained counsel.
It was unreasonable to expect that Petitioners would have understood the BIA’s decision and deciphered the filing deadline without the guidance of their retained counsel.
MENJIVAR-AYALA V. BLANCHE, 24-4562 (9th Cir. July 9, 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision requires the Board of Immigration Appeals to reconsider motions to reopen where counsel fails to notify clients of BIA decisions and deadlines, applying a presumption of prejudice in such cases.