Legal Opinion
Nehad v. Mukasey
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 31, 2008No. 07-70606PublishedCited by 73 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
POLLAK, District Judge:
Fridoon Zalbeg Rawshan Nehad (“Raw-shan”) petitions for review of an order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings on the basis of ineffective assistance of his counsel, Pieter Speyer. This is an atypical ineffective-assistance claim, inasmuch as counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness derived not from the giving of incompetent advice, but from pressuring his client into accepting voluntary departure under threat of counsel’s withdrawal. For the reasons that follow, we will grant the petition for review and remand with instructions to the Board of Immigration Appeals…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-FonsecaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Miguel Angel Iturribarria v. Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Lopez-MendozaSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Khadija Mohammed v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Khadija Ahmed Mohamed v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Naseem Salman Al-Harbi v. Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by73 opinions
- Santiago-Rodriguez v. HolderCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Raghunathan v. HolderCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010
- Singh v. HolderCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Contreras v. Attorney General of United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2012
- Pitts v. Dept. Of Veterans AffairsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.