The petitioner's prior attorney had advised him to waive appeal of the Immigration Court's denial of his cancellation of removal application, and instead, pursue consular processing based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen.  The problem with this proposed course of action is that the petitioner was subject to the so-called "permanent bar" to admissibility under section 212(a)(9)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.  Thus, he was not eligible to obtain his residency through consular processing.  The Ninth Circuit determined that this advice constituted substandard conduct by the prior attorney, and that the forfeiture of appeals rights prejudiced the petitioner's case.  Thus, the court determined that the petitioner's motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel was improperly denied.

The full text of Salazar-Gonzalez v. Lynch can be found here: