Carlos Gonzalez-Benitez v. Todd Blanche

── Carlos Gonzalez-Benitez v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 17, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 17 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS GONZALEZ-BENITEZ, Nos. 17-72643; 18-71411 Agency No. Petitioner, A095-750-320 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 15, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN, BUMATAY, and TUNG, Circuit Judges. In this consolidated appeal, Petitioner Carlos Gonzalez-Benitez seeks review of two decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA): (1) a September 13, 2017 order denying Petitioner’s request to reopen and remand removal proceedings * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). to the Immigration Judge (IJ) on grounds that Petitioner allegedly received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he should be allowed to pursue special rule cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2); and (2) an April 18, 2018 order denying Petitioner’s motion to reconsider the BIA’s 2017 order and to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal issued by the BIA under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. We begin with the BIA’s 2017 order, taking each of its three justifications in turn. First, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in holding that Petitioner failed to satisfy the procedural requirements for raising an ineffective- assistance-of-counsel claim. A party seeking to reopen removal proceedings on that basis generally must comply with the procedural requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA). See Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1072 (9th Cir. 2003). Lozada requires “that a petitioner alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must: (1) provide an affidavit describing in detail the agreement with counsel; (2) inform counsel of the allegations and afford counsel an opportunity to respond; and (3) report whether a complaint of ethical or legal violations has been filed, and if not, why.” Id. These requirements are meant to “ensur[e] that a legitimate claim actually exists and develop[] an adequate factual basis for the BIA to adjudicate the claim.” Ray v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 582, 588 (9th Cir. 2006). “We presume, as a general rule, that the Board does not abuse its discretion when it 2 17-72643; 18-71411 obligates petitioners to satisfy Lozada’s literal requirements.” Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Melkonian, 320 F.3d at 1072. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Petitioner failed to satisfy the requirements set forth in Lozada because “he did not give his prior counsel an opportunity to respond . . . before allegations were presented to the Board.” Petitioner first alleged he received ineffective assistance of counsel in his January 18, 2017, notice of appeal to the BIA. Yet he waited nearly two months to file a complaint with the California State Bar. A copy of that complaint was delivered to his former counsel on March 20, 2017. Three days later, on March 23, 2017, Petitioner filed his motion to