UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

SANTIAGO ALEJANDRE-GALLEGOS, Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney General, Respondent. No. 14-9567 (Petition for Review)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TYMKOVICH , O’BRIEN , and GORSUCH , Circuit Judges.
Worried that he could be deported for his unlawful presence in this country, Santiago Alejandre-Gallegos sought discretionary relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), which sometimes allows the Attorney General to “cancel ” a deportation that would result in “unusual hardship” to an a lien’s U.S. citizen family members. GarciaCarbajal v. Holder , 625 F.3d 1233, 1235 (10th Cir. 2010). An Immigration Judge

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 a nd 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### March 26, 2015
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - denied the request and so did the Board of Immigration Appeals. No matter how hard the hardship, the BIA not ed, an applicant can’t win cancellation of removal if he has been convicted of a crim e involving moral turpitude. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2) & 1229b(b)(1)(C). And, the BIA observed, Mr. Alejandre-Gallegos has pleaded guilty to at least one such offense. Now before us, Mr. Alejandre-Gallegos seeks to undo this decision but his attorney fails to give us any grounds on which we might. Counsel suggests the BIA relied on improper evidence but doesn’t supply any citations to th e record where it went wrong on the facts (despi te Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8 )(A)). He suggests that the BIA applied the wrong legal st andards but doesn’t cite any legal authority that might remotely support his claim. He even spends pages discussing another criminal charge against his client irrelevant to th e one on which the BIA relied. Neither are counsel’s shortcomings confined to such important thi ngs. His statement of related cases actually includes argument (in defiance of 10th Cir. R. 28.2(C)(1)). He does not “cite the precise reference in the record where [each of his issues] was raised and ruled on” (as required by 10th Cir. R. 28. 2(C)(2)) and his statement of the case includes no record citations at all (as required by Fed. R. A pp. P. 28(a)(6)). His brief contains no “summary of the argument.” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(7). He hasn’t even bothered to “alphabetically a rrange[]” his table of author ities. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(3)). We could go on.- 3 - Essentially, counsel pronounces that th e BIA mistook the facts and acted in defiance of law and leaves it to the cour t to go fish for facts and law that might possibly support his claim. This, of course, the court ha s no obligation and is poorly positioned to do. In our adversarial system , neutral and busy cour ts rely on lawyers to develop and present in an intelligible format the facts and law to support their arguments and “[t]he advers arial process cannot properl y function when one party ignores its obligations under the rules.” MacArthur v. San Juan Cnty. , 495 F.3d 1157, 1160 (10t h Cir. 2007); see also Aquila, Inc. v. C.W. Mining , 545 F.3d 1258, 1268 (10th Cir. 2008); United States v. Hahn , 359 F.3d 1315, 1329 n.15 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc). For that reason it’s within the court’s power “to dismiss an appeal when the appellant has fail ed to abide by the rules of appellate procedure.” MacArthur , 495 F.3d at 1161. That’s the course we find ourselves forced to take in this case. We dismiss the petition for review. We confess reluctance about having to proceed so summarily and about having to chastise a professional co lleague in this way. Ev eryone makes mistakes, and surely judges no less than lawy ers. But the shortcomings here don’t just suggest a mistake, a few, or even a thoroughgoing disi nterest in the rules of procedure. They suggest a lack of competent representation. For all we know from counsel’s garbled submission before us, his clie nt may have a good claim or at least an arguable one: we just cannot tell. That worry occupied us so much that we decided to review counsel’s past filings in this court to see if his conduct here was (hopefully)- 4 - anomalous. But the results proved even more disquieting. They revealed that for at least a decade attorney John E. Reardon, Sr., has represented in th is court immigrants seeking relief from removal — a nd that for at least that l ong his filings in this court have consistently suffered fro m the sort of shortcomings pr esent in this one. It turns out that this court has noted the problem ti me and again. It ha s reminded counsel of his professional obligations . It has admonished hi m. All to no effect. 1 At some point, this court has a duty to do more than observe, record, and warn. It has a duty to act. After reviewing the reco rd before us, we are confident that time has more than come. B ecause we believe sanctions — including suspension from this court’s bar and restituti on — may be appropriate, we di rect the Clerk to initiate a

1 See, e.g. , Medina-Chimal v. Holder , 14-9564, slip op. at 7 n.3 (10th Cir. Mar. 20, 2015); Gonsalez v. Holder , 567 F. App’x 612, 614 (10t h Cir. 2014) (noting that Mr. Reardon’s arguments “are prolix, va gue, and contain little discussion of the precise circumstances of this case”); Vigil-Lazo v. Holder , 571 F. App’x 708, 711 n.2 (10th Cir. 2014) (obs erving that Mr. Reardon “offer[ed no] substantive argument” to support his client’s “conc lusory” claim of error); Pizano-Zeferino v. Holder , 432 F. App’x 767, 770 (10th Cir. 2011) (declin ing to indulge Mr. Reardon’s “unfocused” constitutional contentions and holding that he failed to exhaust certain other arguments); Duron-Amador v. Holder , 381 F. App’x 778, 782 (10th Cir. 2010) (denying a petition for Mr. Reardon’s failure to comply with Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)); Herrera-Castillo v. Holder , 573 F.3d 1004, 1006 n.5, 10 10 (10th Cir. 2009) (noting that Mr. Reardon neglected to file hi s opening brief on time and finding some arguments waived due to hi s failure to comply with Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)); Mendiola v. Gonzales , 189 F. App’x 810, 81 4-15 (10th Cir. 2006) (re jecting several of Mr. Reardon’s arguments as poor ly developed or unexhausted); Mendez Suarez v. Comfort , 117 F. App’x 1, 2-3 (10th Cir. 2004) (noting the difficulty of “ascertain[ing] specifically what [Mr. Reardon] is argui ng in his brief” and deciding only to review a handful of claimed errors “ due to his failure to set forth a coherent argument” supporting any others).- 5 - disciplinary proceeding against Mr. Reardon. See Fed. R. App. P. 46(c); 10th Cir. R. 46.6; Tenth Circuit Plan for At torney Disciplinary Enforcement §§ 2.3 & 3. So ordered. Entered for the Court

Neil M. Gorsuch Circuit Judge