Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-16

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying a motion to reopen based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court applied an abuse of discretion standard, requiring petitioners to demonstrate that counsel’s conduct was egregious and rendered the proceedings fundamentally unfair, as well as substantial prejudice showing the outcome might have been affected. The court found no deficiency because the information alleged to be missing from the record was already presented by the petitioner during testimony. Regarding prejudice, the court held the BIA correctly applied the standard requiring a plausible claim for relief and that the BIA did not demand proof that relief would have been granted absent counsel’s error. Furthermore, the court upheld the BIA’s conclusion that changed country conditions rebutted fears of persecution based on religion and nationality, noting the Immigration Judge made an individualized determination rather than relying solely on State Department reports. The court also rejected the argument regarding humanitarian asylum because the issue was not raised in the motion to reopen and was therefore unexhausted. As a practical consequence, the petition is denied, the motion to stay removal is denied, and the temporary stay of removal previously entered under General Order 6.4(c) is lifted.

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