Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3d 349
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the Board of
Immigration Appeals and was argued.
Delvillar moved the BIA to reopen his deportation proceeding, arguing that he
did not receive notice of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal. The BIA denied this
motion, noting that it had sent notice of its dismissal to Delvillar's counsel of
record. Delvillar moved the BIA again to reopen his deportation proceedings,
now arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his
deportation hearing and during and after his appeal to the BIA and that the BIA
should reconsider his 212(c) application in light of new evidence. The BIA
denied this motion because Delvillar did not comply with the procedural
requirements for demonstrating a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel as
set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637(BIA), aff'd, 857 F.2d 10 (1st
Cir.1988) and because he failed to appeal the original denial of his 212(c)
application, thereby precluding later review.
Delvillar now appeals, arguing that: (1) the BIA abused its discretion in
rejecting his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) the BIA abused
its discretion in declining to reconsider his 212(c) application based on
circumstances that have arisen since his deportation hearing.
10
We have considered all the arguments raised by Delvillar and find them to be
without merit.
11