FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ASIF IDREES, No. 15-71573 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A070-786-987 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, ORDER AND Respondent. AMENDED OPINION On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted November 15, 2018 Pasadena, California Filed December 13, 2018 Filed April 30, 2019 Before: Ronald M. Gould, Barrington D. Parker, * and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges. Order; Opinion by Judge Gould * The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation. 2 IDREES V. BARR SUMMARY ** Immigration The panel filed: (1) an order that amended its opinion filed on December 13, 2018, and published at 910 F.3d 1103, denied petitioner’s petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, and ordered that no future petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be entertained; and (2) an amended opinion. In the amended opinion, the panel dismissed in part and denied in part Asif Idrees’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision that declined to certify his ineffective assistance of counsel claim for review under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(c), holding that the BIA’s decision not to certify a claim is committed to agency discretion and, in this case, not subject to judicial review. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(c), the BIA has authority to accept a procedurally improper appeal by certification. Idrees sought certification of a claim asserting that his prior counsel’s ineffective representation prevented him from timely appealing his underlying removal order. The BIA had previously rejected that claim when it reopened and remanded the case to the immigration judge on a separate ineffective assistance of counsel claim. On remand, the immigration judge denied relief, and Idrees appealed to the BIA, arguing that the immigration judge should have certified his ineffective assistance of counsel claim to the BIA. The BIA declined to certify the issue, noting that it had ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. IDREES V. BARR 3 already rejected Idrees’s claim when it reopened his proceedings. The panel held that the decision not to certify a claim is committed to agency discretion under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a). The panel explained that the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(c) commits the matter to the BIA’s discretion, the regulation contains no standard for how the agency should exercise its discretion, and no other regulation or statute provides guidance on this issue. The panel noted that, although the BIA stated in In re Liadov, 23 I. & N. Dec. 990 (BIA 2006), that it will certify claims in “exceptional circumstances,” the BIA had not elaborated on which circumstances are considered to be exceptional and thus sufficient to merit certification. Accordingly, the panel concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to review Idrees’s challenge to the decision not to certify his ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals