TECLEZGHI

TECLEZGHI v. Holder

Good Law
628 F.3d 1055·2010 WL 5483375
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 4, 201007-70661, 07-71463California3,671 words

Opinion

Dissenting Opinion

Pregerson, J.

dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc:

Am attorney representing an asylum seeker has a duty to investigate all grounds upon which an applicant may be entitled to relief. However, the panel majority in this case erroneously and absurdly concludes otherwise. The panel majority holds that an attorney does not provide ineffective assistance of counsel when she fails to inquire as to whether her female client has suffered female genital mutilation when (1) nearly 90 percent of women in the client’s home country endure such a brutal procedure, and (2) it is well-settled that female genital mutilation constitutes persecution sufficient to warrant a grant of asylum.

Specifically, the panel majority tells us that an attorney does not perform incompetently in these circumstances by failing “to inquire of his or her own accord into the condition of a client’s genitals.... ” Teclezghi v. Holder, 378 Fed.Appx. 615, 618 (9th Cir.2010). As Judge Betty Fletcher wrote in her dissent, the panel majority elevates the “potential discomfort a lawyer might feel in asking a woman whether she has suffered female genital mutilation over the lawyer’s duty to do his or her job.” Id. at 619 (B.…

Lead Opinion

Order; Dissent by Judge PREGERSON.

*1056 ORDER

Judges Kleinfeld and Duffy voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Fletcher voted to grant the petition for rehearing. Judges Kleinfeld and Duffy recommend denying the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Fletcher recommends granting the petition for rehearing en banc.

The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and a judge of the court requested a vote on whether to rehear the case en banc. ■ The en banc call failed to receive a majority of votes by active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.

Opinion

Before: BETTY B. FLETCHER and ANDREW J. KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and KEVIN THOMAS DUFFY, [*] Senior District Judge.

Order; Dissent by Judge PREGERSON.

Judges Kleinfeld and Duffy voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Fletcher voted to grant the petition for rehearing. Judges Kleinfeld and Duffy recommend denying the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Fletcher recommends granting the petition for rehearing en banc.

The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and a judge of the court requested a vote on whether to rehear the case en banc. The en banc call failed to receive a majority of votes by active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc:

An attorney representing an asylum seeker has a duty to investigate all grounds upon which an applicant may be entitled to relief. However, the panel majority in this case erroneously and absurdly concludes otherwise. The panel majority holds that an attorney does not provide ineffective assistance of counsel when she fails to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.