Narrative Opinion Summary
Hui Fang Zhou, a Chinese national, sought judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision to dismiss her appeal from an immigration judge's ruling that denied her motion to reopen based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and reviews such denials for abuse of discretion. The petition for review was denied because Zhou did not meet the criteria established in *Matter of Lozada*, which outlines the necessary procedures for claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Furthermore, the court found that the alleged ineffective assistance was not evident from the record. As a result, the petition was denied, and the court noted that the disposition is not suitable for publication and does not serve as precedent except as outlined in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Immigration Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applies the criteria established in *Matter of Lozada* to assess claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Reasoning: The petition for review was denied because Zhou did not meet the criteria established in *Matter of Lozada*, which outlines the necessary procedures for claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.
Jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court has the authority to review denials of motions to reopen in immigration cases.
Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and reviews such denials for abuse of discretion.
Precedential Value of Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: This court disposition is not suitable for publication and does not serve as precedent, except as provided under specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: The court noted that the disposition is not suitable for publication and does not serve as precedent except as outlined in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Standard of Review for Denials of Motions to Reopensubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviews denials of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion, and found no abuse in this case due to lack of evidence in the record.
Reasoning: The court found that the alleged ineffective assistance was not evident from the record.