Ashton Leblanc, a U.S. citizen, employed an attorney to help him secure citizenship for his son, who was born outside of the United States. The attorney filed a family-based immigration petition (known as an I-130) on behalf of Ashton's son, Robert. The I-130 was eventually denied for failure to submit the necessary documents and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial. All along, the attorney assured Ashton that all was proceeding as planned. Ashton eventually spoke to a second attorney, who called the first attorney to inquire about the status of the case. Because the second attorney was satisfied that the first attorney had everything well in hand (clearly not the case given that the case had been denied), he reassured Ashton. Finally, Ashton hired a third attorney who discovered the first attorney's blunder, and moved to reopen the petition at the Board of Immigration Appeals. This motion was denied, and subsequently appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
The Fourth Circuit determined that it had no jurisdiction over a denied visa petition. Ordinarily, such a denial should be transferred to a District Court for review. However, the Fourth Circuit declined to do so, finding that the interests of justice would not be served, as Ashton's goal was to establish Robert's citizenship, and the approval of the I-130 would be of no benefit to that process.
The full text of Leblanc v. Holder can be found here: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/132474.P.pdf