green
Positive treatment
Trending · 245 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 1×
29.8 score
“the basic 'unfairness' of which the petitioners complain is that they never would have been subject to removal proceedings had it not been for their reliance on pineda's unfortunate immigration-law advice. this 'unfairness,' however, did not taint the 'fairness' of the hearing.”
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hernandez-Mancilla v. Holder
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
the basic 'unfairness' of which the petitioners complain is that they never would have been subject to removal proceedings had it not been for their reliance on pineda's unfortunate immigration-law advice. this 'unfairness,' however, did not taint the 'fairness' of the hearing.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gabriela Galvez De Ramirez v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 973-75 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (no ineffective assistance where representative’s incorrect advice led to issuance of Notice to Appear and petitioner was ineligible for relief).
cited
Cited "see"
Francisco Rios v. Eric Holder, Jr.
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Colchado v. Holder
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 973-75 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (no ineffective assistance where representative’s incorrect advice led to issuance of Notice to Appear and petitioner was ineligible for relief).
discussed
Cited "see"
Casteneda-Rivera v. Holder
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2); see Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968 , 972 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen are reviewed for abuse of discretion), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Casteneda-Rivera v. Holder
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2); see Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen are reviewed for abuse of discretion), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Perez v. Holder
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (order) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).
discussed
Cited "see"
Perez v. Holder
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (order) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).
cited
Cited "see"
Wen Zhen Ma v. Holder
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2004), amended on other grounds by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
cited
Cited "see"
Wen Zhen Ma v. Holder
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2004), amended on other grounds by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Flores Luna v. Holder
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (order) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).
discussed
Cited "see"
Flores Luna v. Holder
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (order) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).
discussed
Cited "see"
Picasso-Gomez v. Holder
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (order) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).
discussed
Cited "see"
Picasso-Gomez v. Holder
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (order) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).
cited
Cited "see"
Rivera-Lopez v. Holder
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
cited
Cited "see"
Rivera-Lopez v. Holder
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
cited
Cited "see"
Mariscal-Caro v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 976 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
cited
Cited "see"
Mariscal-Caro v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 976 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
cited
Cited "see"
Garcia-Gonzales v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Heredia-Santana v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion).
cited
Cited "see"
Ashraf v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
cited
Cited "see"
Carlos v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
cited
Cited "see"
Arce-Ramirez v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
cited
Cited "see"
Mendez v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Garcia v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ramirez-Guerrero v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion).
cited
Cited "see"
Villagomez v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Flores-Otero v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion).
discussed
Cited "see"
De La Cruz v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion).
cited
Cited "see"
Al Dhanebi v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir .2005).
cited
Cited "see"
Blandon v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
cited
Cited "see"
Changming Ma v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ocampo v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion).
discussed
Cited "see"
Singh v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion).
cited
Cited "see"
Gutierrez v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion).
cited
Cited "see"
Ramirez v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Garcia-Alcaraz v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rivera v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion).
discussed
Cited "see"
Borel v. Mukasey
See Larar-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968 , 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion).
discussed
Cited "see"
Perez v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sanchez-Martinez v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pelcaru v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion).
cited
Cited "see"
Veloz v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
cited
Cited "see"
Cruz-Celaya v. Mukasey
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Marcial v. Keisler
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d); See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion).
discussed
Cited "see"
Orduna v. Keisler
Specifically, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner’s motion to reconsider when the motion was number-barred and sought reconsideration of “a decision denying a previous motion to reconsider.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (b)(2); see Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion).
cited
Cited "see"
Navarro-Pulido v. Gonzales
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gaspar-Correia v. Gonzales
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion); see also Hughes v. Ashcroft, 255 F.3d 752, 759-60 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 does not apply retroactively to lawful permanent residents who were older than eighteen years old at the time of the Act’s effective date).
cited
Cited "see"
Kaur v. Gonzales
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
cited
Cited "see"
Roldan v. Gonzales
See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Dagoberto Lara-Torres Erika Lara-Perez
v.
Alberto Gonzales , Attorney General, Dagoberto Lara-Torres Erika Lara-Perez v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, Dagoberto Lara-Torres Erika Lara-Perez v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General
v.
Alberto Gonzales , Attorney General, Dagoberto Lara-Torres Erika Lara-Perez v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, Dagoberto Lara-Torres Erika Lara-Perez v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General
03-70931.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Apr 21, 2005.
404 F.3d 1105
Cited by 18 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (1)
Dagoberto LARA-TORRES; Erika Lara-Perez, Petitioners,
v.
Alberto GONZALES[*], Attorney General, Respondent.
Dagoberto Lara-Torres; Erika Lara-Perez, Petitioners,
v.
Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, Respondent.
Dagoberto Lara-Torres; Erika Lara-Perez, Petitioners,
v.
Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-72329.
No. 03-70931.
No. 03-70932.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted January 13, 2004.
Filed September 8, 2004.
Amended April 21, 2005.
1
Marc Van Der Hout, Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, San Francisco, CA, for the petitioners.
2
Russell J.E. Verby, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the respondent.
3
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Agency Nos. Avc-yes-wob, Aib-cut-sgb.
4
Before WALLACE, McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and MOSKOWITZ, District Judge.[**]
ORDER
5
The majority opinion filed September 8, 2004, slip op. 12991, and appearing at 383 F.3d 968 (9th Cir.2004), is hereby amended as follows:
6
1. Page 974, at end of second full paragraph, after citation to Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 900-01, insert: "While this temporal distinction may not always be significant, in this case, Pineda's allegedly ineffective assistance did not undermine the fairness of the removal proceedings in part because it was given well before the prospect of a hearing materialized."
7
2. Page 975, at end of first paragraph: change "removed from the actual process itself" to "which does not undermine the fairness of the actual process itself"
8
With these amendments, Judge McKeown has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judges Wallace and Moskowitz have so recommended. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. No subsequent petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed.
Notes:
*
Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2)
**
Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation