Ronald J. Morales-Mendoza v. Immigration and Naturalizaton Service, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 13 May 1994, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,USA_CA_9,3ae6b67ac.html [accessed 4 November 2019]
Comments
Submitted: 9 May, 1994; Filed: 13 May, 1994.
Disclaimer
This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.
RONALD J. MORALES-MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE Respondent. No. 93-70462 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT May 9, 1994, Submitted, San Francisco, California May 13, 1994, Filed
Subsequent History: Reported in Table Case Format at: 26 F.3d 131.
Prior History:
Petition to Review a Decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. INS No. A29-555-480
Disposition:
DENIED.
Judges:
Before: NOONAN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges and EZRA, ** District Judge ** Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
Opinion:
MEMORANDUM * * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3. Ronald J. Morales-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, entered the United States without inspection on February 18, 1988. Ordered to show cause why he was not deportable, he conceded deportation and requested asylum. The Immigration Judge denied his request but granted voluntary departure. Morales-Mendoza then moved to reopen his case on the ground that he had ineffective assistance of counsel. The Immigration Judge denied the motion. Morales-Mendoza appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board dismissed the appeal, finding (1) that Morales-Mendoza had not complied with the requirements set out in Matter of Lozada, 19 I & N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), aff'd, 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988), for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) that he had failed to establish prima facie eligibility pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 242.22 (1991). Substantial evidence supports the Board's findings. Consequently, the petition is DENIED.
