Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 294 (BIA 2007) Interim Decision #3583

1 On our own motion, we amend the August 2, 2007, order in this case. The amended order

makes editorial changes consistent with our designation of the case as a precedent.

294

In re Carlo JEAN-JOSEPH, Attorney

File D2007-086

Decided as amended September 26, 20071

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals

Where an attorney who was suspended from practice before the Board of Immigration

Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and the Department of Homeland Security pending the

final disposition of his attorney discipline proceeding sought reinstatement because he had

been reinstated to the Florida Bar, but he had practiced before the Miami Immigration Court

while under the Board’s immediate suspension order, his motion was denied, and he was

instead suspended for 120 days, twice the recommended discipline in the Notice of Intent

To Discipline. 

FOR RESPONDENT: Pro se

FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, OFFICE OF GENERAL

COUNSEL: Jennifer J. Barnes, Bar Counsel

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Eileen M. Connolly, Appellate

Counsel

BEFORE: Board Panel: HURWITZ, Acting Vice Chairman; HOLMES and HESS, Board

Members.

HOLMES, Board Member:

The respondent, who has been suspended from practice before the Board of

Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and the Department of

Homeland Security (“DHS”) pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.103(a) (2007)

pending final disposition of this proceeding, has sought reinstatement to

practice. The motion is opposed by the Office of the General Counsel for the

Executive Office for Immigration Review, which initiated these proceedings.

The motion will be denied, and the respondent will be suspended for 120 days.
Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 294 (BIA 2007) Interim Decision #3583

295

On February 15, 2007, the respondent was suspended from the practice of

law by the Supreme Court of Florida for 60 days. Consequently, on April 6,

2007, the Office of the General Counsel petitioned for the respondent’s

immediate suspension from practice before the Board and the Immigration

Courts. On April 12, 2007, the DHS asked that the respondent be similarly

suspended from practice before that agency. Therefore, on April 27, 2007, we

suspended the respondent from practicing before the Board, the Immigration

Courts, and the DHS pending the final disposition of this proceeding.

The respondent moves that we reinstate him to practice before the Board,

the Immigration Courts, and the DHS. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.107 (2007). He

presents evidence that he was automatically reinstated to the Florida Bar on

May 18, 2007.

The Office of the General Counsel opposes the reinstatement motion and

contends that the respondent appeared as counsel in at least five separate

proceedings before the Miami Immigration Court while he was suspended

from practice before the Immigration Courts. The Office of the General

Counsel argues that the reinstatement motion should be denied and that,

instead, the respondent should be suspended for 120 days, twice the

recommended discipline in the Notice of Intent To Discipline. The respondent

does not contest the allegations in the Notice of Intent To Discipline.

Since the recommended discipline is appropriate in light of the respondent’s

suspension from the practice of law in Florida and his practice before the

Miami Immigration Court while under the Board’s suspension order, we will

deny the reinstatement motion and honor the Government’s recommendation.

Accordingly, the respondent will be suspended from practice before the Board,

the Immigration Courts, and the DHS for a period of 120 days. As the

respondent is currently under our April 27, 2007, order of suspension, we will

deem the respondent’s suspension to have commenced on that date.

The respondent is instructed to maintain compliance with the directives set

forth in our prior order. The respondent is also instructed to notify the Board

of any further disciplinary action against him. We direct that the contents of

this notice be made available to the public, including at the Immigration Courts

and appropriate offices of the DHS.

After the suspension period expires, the respondent may again file a petition

for reinstatement to practice before the Board, the Immigration Courts, and the

DHS.

ORDER: The motion for reinstatement is denied.

FURTHER ORDER: The respondent is suspended from practice before the

Board of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and the DHS for a

period of 120 days.