A presumption of prejudice attaches when a lawyer's silence costs the client the appeal window.
.svg)
The decision. In Menjivar-Ayala v. Blanche, No. 24-4562 (9th Cir. July 9, 2026), the Ninth Circuit held that the Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion by denying a motion to reopen and reissue its decision where prior counsel never told a family that the Board had ruled, or that their window to seek judicial review was running. The panel granted the petition and remanded so the Board can reissue its decision, restarting that clock.
What it means. Reissuance is the remedy that makes an ineffective-assistance claim meaningful when counsel's silence costs the client the review period itself. The decision reinforces that prejudice may be presumed when a lawyer's failure forfeits the appeal entirely. For practitioners handling motions to reopen, this is the vehicle, and the standard, to know.
Where it applies. Menjivar-Ayala is published and binds across the Ninth Circuit's states, from California and Arizona to Washington. Its reasoning will be cited well beyond them.
The limits. The posture is abuse of discretion, and the facts were stark: counsel never conveyed the decision at all. Diligence after discovering the problem still matters, and nothing here excuses a motion that could have been filed sooner.
Case Law Watch is Emeriti Law's weekly note on decisions that matter for immigration appeals. Our appellate practice briefs these questions before the Board of Immigration Appeals. This note is general information, not legal advice.
.png)
