Pursuant to Feder al Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 43(c) (2), Attorne y General Mic hael B. 1 Muka sey ha s b een su bs tit ute d f or f orm er A tto rne y G en era l Jo hn As hc rof t as the res po nd ent in thi s ca se. 04-0309-ag Pi ran ej v. Mukas ey 1 UNITED STA TES COU RT OF AP PEALS 2 3 FO R T HE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 4 5

____________________________________ 6 7 August Term, 2007 8 9 (S ub m itt ed : S ep tem be r 6, 20 07 De cid ed : F eb ruary 1 5, 20 08 ) 10 11 Do ck et N o. 04 -03 09 -ag 12

____________________________________ 13 14 A RTUR P I RANEJ , 15 16 Pe tit ion er , 17 18 v. 19 20 M I CHAEL B. M UKA SE Y , 1 21 22 Respondent

. 23

____________________________________ 24 25 Before: WA LKER, CA LABRES I, and SACK, Ci rcu it J ud ges . 26

____________________________________ 27 28 Petition for r eview of the December 17, 2003 denial, by the Board of Imm igrati on 29 Ap pe als (“B IA ”), of a m oti on to r eo pe n d ep ort ati on

pro cee din gs ba sed

on ine ff ect ive ass ist an ce 30 of

co un sel

. 31 32 Petition gr anted. Vacated a nd remanded. 33

____________________________________ 34 35 Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, Law Office of V. 36 Rudrakumaran, New York, N.Y ., for Pe tit ion er . 37 38 Hillel R. Smith, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration 39 Li tig ati on (P ete r D . K eis ler , A ssi stant A tto rne y G en era l, 40 Greg D. Mack, Senior Lit igation Counsel , on thebr ief ), 41 W ashington, D.C., for Resp on de nt. 422 1

___________________________________ 2 3 4 CALAB RESI, Circuit Judge : 5 Petitione r Artur Pir anej (“Pir anej” or “Pet itioner ”) alle ges that butfor the ineffective 6 assista nce of his counsel, he would ha ve been able t o adjust his status t o that of a lawful 7 permanent resident a nd thus avoid depor tation. Based on t hat clai m, he f iled a motion before the 8 Board of Imm igrati on Appeals (“BIA”) t o reopen his r emoval proceedings. The BIA denied the 9 motion, finding that Piranej had failed to meet certa in of the pleading r equirements set out i n In 10 re Lozada , 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (B.I.A. 1988) – speci fically thatof alleging in det ail the 11 agreement he had with counsel and how that agree ment was violated. 12 Pi ran ej’ s af fi davit s an d s ub m itt ed

m ate ria ls b ef

ore the BI A, ho we ve r, c anbe rea d to 13 ass ert

that he an d h is c ouns el w ere in a rel ati on sh ip s im ilar to that of a g en era l re tai ne r 14 ag ree m en t, and

that, d ue to t he natur e o f t

his rel ati on sh ip, the lawye r sh ou ld h av e p rov ide d 15 Piranej wit h timely advice about new opportunities for adj ustment of status. Because the 16 prospect of a “gener al reta iner agre ement” is not one which the l anguage of Lozada 17 contemplates, we find that the BIA abused its dis cretion i n reject ing Petiti oner’s ine ffective 18 ass ist an ce o f c ouns el c lai m wi tho ut a

m ore tho rou ghfa ctu al e xam inatio n and , if su chan 19 ex am inatio n w arr anted it, a co ns ide rat ion

of the m ean ingan d a

pp lic ab ili ty o f t

he Lozada 20 requirements in the context of general retaine r agreements. 21 W e th ere fo re r em an d th is c ase to t he BI A w ithins tru cti on s to rem an d it to an 22 Imm igr ati on

Ju dg e (“ IJ” ) f

or f act -f ind ingon the ex act param ete rs o f t

he rel ati on sh ip b etw een 23 Piranej and hi s lawyer. The IJ a nd BIA should then deter mine, in the first inst ance, whether t he 24 understandi ng between Piranej and his lawyer s erves the functi ons embodied in Lozada ’sLom

bardi was not pr esent at t his heari ng but sent his associat e, ChristopherEnzuro. 2

3 1 “agreement” requir ement, and whether, in lightof that determination, Pir anej’s al legations have 2 substanti ally complied with thi s require ment. 3 B ACKG ROUND 4 I. Un de rly in g E ve nt s 5 6 Artur Pirane j, a citi zen of Albania, enter ed the United Sta tes on or aboutJuly 31, 1998. 7 In Aug us t of

that ye ar, Pi ran ej, wi th t

he ass ist an ce o f J am es H ak an jan , a m em be r of an 8 “im

m igr ati on ser vic e, ” who wa s “f

am ili ar w ithho w the se a

pp lic ati on s ar e f

ill ed out,” att em

pte d 9 to f

ile anasy lum

cla im . T he ap pli cat ion

wa s ap pa rentlyim pro pe rlyfi lle d o ut and , o n th is b asi s, 10 wa s d en ied . O n S ep tem be r 30 , 1 99 8, Pi ran ej w as s erv ed wi th a No tic e to Ap pe ar. As anali en 11 inadmissible due to i nvalid entr y documentation, he was charged wit h removability. 8 U.S.C. § 12 1182(a)(7) (A)(i)( I). 13 At

that po int , P irane

j hi red Jam es L om

bardi as h is l awye r. A t a h ear ingbe fo re an IJ in 14 December of that year, Piranej , with counsel pr esent, conceded his r emovability and sought 2 15 po lit ica l as ylum

an d w ithho ldi ng of

rem ov al. On

Mar ch9, 19 99 , h is p eti tio ns fo r re lie f w ere 16 denied by the I J, and he was ordere d removed. Lo m bardi , o n b eh alf

of Pi ran ej, fi led

a ti m ely 17 appeal to t he BIA, which affirm ed the IJ’ s decision wit hout opinion on Februa ry 13, 2003. In re 18 Pi ra ne

j , No. A76 085 301 (B.I.A. Feb. 13, 2003), aff ’g No . A 76 08 5 3 01 (Im

m ig. Ct . N .Y . C ity 19 Mar. 9, 1999). The BIA’s dec ision was not appe aled to thi s Court. II. Mo tio n T o R eo pe n B efo re t he BI A 20 21 In M ay20 03 , P irane j, r ep res ented

byne w c ouns el, fi led

a m oti on to r eo pe n h is 22 de po rtatio n h ear ing s o n th e g rou nd that he rec eiv ed

ine ff ect ive ass ist an ce o f c ouns el. He arg ue dLo m

bardi dis putes thi s ch ara cte riz ati on of the co nv ers ati on

an d h as s tat ed

that he “d id n ot t ell 3 them that they should not ge t married.”

4 1 that but for Lombardi’s negli gence, Piranej would have been able t o adjust his status t o that of a 2 pe rm an en t re sid ent an d th us av oid de po rtatio n. In s ub m itt ing his m oti on to t he Bo ard , P irane

j 3 provided an affidavit a lleging pr ejudice due t o Lom bardi’s i neffective assist ance and outli ning 4 asp ect s o f t

he ir atto rne y-c lie nt r elatio ns hip . P irane j al so su bm itt ed the co m pla int that he ha d 5 fi led

wi th t he De partm ental Di sci pli nary C om m itt ee, as w ell as e vid en ce t hat L om bardi ha d b een 6 informed of

the alle gations agai nst him and been given an opportuni ty to respond. 7 8 A. Th e A lle

ge d In eff ect iveAs sis tan ce o

f C ou ns el 9 Sh ort ly a ft er arri vin g in the Un ite d S tat es, in t

he autum n o f 1 99 8, Pi ran ej m et B uk uri je 10 Ne za. At

Pi ran ej’ s as ylum

he ari ng on

Mar ch9, 19 99 , N eza , a

U. S. cit ize n, wa s id entif

ied as 11 Ar

tur Pi ran ej’ s f

ian cée . A ft er the he ari ng , P irane j to ld h is l awye r, L om

bardi , th at h e an d N eza 12 wante d to ge t m arr ied . L om bardi all eg ed ly a dv ise d th em no t to do so , s ay ing “it

wo uld hurt the ir 13 case.” 3 14 In e arl y 1 99 9, the av ail ab ili ty o f a dju stm ent of status ba sed

on a m arr iag e to anAm eri can 15 cit ize n w as l im ite d b y 8 U. S. C. § 1 15 4(g ), whic h s tat es t hat “a pe tit ion m ayno t be ap pro ve d to 16 grant an a lie n im m ed iat e re lat ive status or p ref ere nc e st atu s b y re aso n o f a m arr iag e whic h w as 17 entered i nto during the period [in which administrat ive or judi cial proc eedings are pending 18 reg ard ing the ali en ’s r ight to be adm itt ed or r em ain

in t he Un ite d S tat es] , u

nti l th e al ien

ha s 19 res ide d o uts ide the Un ite d S tat es f or a 2-y ear pe rio d b eg inn ingaf

ter the date o f t

he m arr iag e. ” A 20 wa ive r, p rov ide d in Imm igr ati on

an d N ati on ali ty A ct ( “IN A” ) se cti on 24 5(i ), 8 U. S. C. § 1 25 5(i ),Imm igr ati on an d N ati on al A ct ( IN A) sec tio n 2 45 (i) , 8 U. S. C. § 1 25 5(i ), h ad of fe red a ro ute to 4 legaliz ation for cert ain alie ns, physicall y present i n the United Stat es, who had had petit ions for imm igrant vi sas submitted on theirbehalf by January 14, 1998. The waiveravailabl e for aliens wh o h ad be enlaw fu llyadm itt ed

to t he Un ite d S tat es, 8 U .S .C . § 12 55 (e) (3) , w as o f n o re lev an ce to Piranej , since he had ent ered on a false pas sport.

5 1 all ow ing cer

tai n a lie ns to r em ain

in t he Un ite d S tat es whil e ad jus tin g th eir

status , h ad

expir ed in 2 January 1998. 4 3 Pi ran ej and Ne za s til l w anted

to g et m arr ied , “ reg ard les s o f t he outco m e o f [ the ] c ase .” 4 An d to thi s en d, in F eb ruary 2 00 1, Ne za c all ed Lo m bardi “[ t] o b e o n th e sa fe sid e. ” S he lef t a 5 m ess ag e w ithso m eo ne , id entif ied byNe za a s a s ecr etary, that N eza ne ed ed to t alk wi th 6 Lo m

bardi , a s sh e an d P irane

j w ere plann ing on

ge tti ng m arr ied

so on . L om

bardi did no t re tur n 7 the phone call , and Neza and Piranej assumed from this sil ence that i t would be “all right for 8 [them] to get married.” On Marc h 20, Piranej and Neza were married. Following the weddi ng, 9 Neza again cal led Lombardi’s office and spoke to an unide ntified woman who answered the 10 ph on e. Ne za t old thi s w om anthat sh e an d P irane j w ere no w m arr ied

an d th at s he “w ou ld l ike to 11 tal k to Mr. Lo m

bardi an d a sk

him wh at [ the y] sh ou ld d o n ex t.” Ag ain , L om bardi did no t re tur n 12 Neza’s call

. 13 In July 2002, after “ having call ed Mr. Lombardi’s office many m ore times and 14 receiv[ing] no response from him,” Artur Piranej went t o the office, without an appoi ntment, and 15 ask ed

to s ee L om

bardi . H e m et w ithLo m

bardi an d ann ounc ed

his int entio n to fi nd

an oth er 16 attorney t o take acti on on his case, st ating thaton March 20, 2001, he had married a U.S. cit izen. 17 Lom

bardi all egedly repl ied, “Oh my God! If you w ere here be fore April 30, 2001, you would be 18 talking now with me with your green c ard in your pocke t.” 19 Lo m

bardi the n e xp lai ne d to Pi ran ej that th e law h ad ex ten de d th e IN A s ect ion 24 5(i ) 20 waiver to al low adjustment of status for those a liens physi cally pre sent in the United States whoThe LIFE Act was enacted on December 21, 2000. Pub. L. No. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763 5 (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. §1255 (2000)). Itextended the gr andfathering provi sion of section 245( i), offering adjust ment of status to anyone presentin the United St ates, lega lly or illegal ly, who had a petit ion for an imm igrant vi sa submitted on his or herbehalf by April 30, 2001.

6 1 we re the be ne fi ciarie s o f v isa pe tit ion s f

ile d b y Apri l 30 , 2 00 1. Lo m bardi advis ed

Pi ran ej t o 5 2 have Neza file, as soon a s possible, a n I-130 peti tion for permanent reside nce of an alien spouse

. 3 Lo m

bardi ass ist ed

wi th t his fi lin g, wh ich

wa s su bm itt ed on Au gu st 9 , 2 00 2, alm os t si xte en 4 m onths af

ter the statut ory

de ad lin e. In J anuary 2 00 3, the Pi ran ejs ha d a so n, Br ian , and

on Ap ril 5 14, 2003, roughly two months after Piranej ’s removability had be en upheld by the BIA, the I NS 6 approved Neza’s I -130 petit ion. 7 8 B. The BIA’s Decision 9 The BIA, with one Board Member dissenting, de nied Piranej ’s motion to reopen on 10 December 17, 2003. In re P ira ne j , N o. A7 6 0 85 30 1 (B .I. A. De c. 17 , 2 00 3). It f irs t no ted that 11 the I-1 30 pe tit ion , f ile d b y N eza

on Pi ran ej’ s b eh alf

, w as n ot f

ile d unti l Aug us t 9, 20 02 , and that 12 neither t he statut e, INA section 245(i ), 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i), nor it s implem enting regul ation, 8 13 C. F. R. § 1 24 5. 10 , p rov ide d f or an e xc ep tio n to the Ap ril 30 , 2 00 1 f ili ng de ad lin e. On

that ba sis , 14 the BI A d en ied

Pi ran ej’ s p eti tio n to reo pe n; s inc e P irane j w as n ot t

he be ne fi ciary o f a

tim ely 15 fi led

pe tit ion fo r an imm igr ant vi sa, he wa s “s tat uto ril y in eli gib le” fo r ad

jus tm ent of

status un de r 16 section 245( i), hence r eopening was not warr anted. 17 Th e B IAdid no t ad dre ss, ho we ve r, whe the r th e st atute a llo we d f or anyeq uit ab le 18 m eas ure s to tol l th e d ead lin e. Ins tea d, it s tat ed that “[ e] ve n if

sec tio n 2 45 (i) of

the Ac t w as 19 interpr eted to inc lude ineffective as sistance of counsel as an except ion to the Apri l 30, 2001 20 fi lin g d ead lin e, ” P irane j ha d n ot m et the req

uir em ents und er Lozada . T he Bo ard rea so ne d th at7 1 Pi ran ej’ s re qu ire d a ff idavit “f ail [e d] to s et f

ort h in de tai l th e ag ree m ent th at w as e nte red int o 2 wi th c ouns el w ithres pe ct t o th e ac tio ns to b e take n and wh at r ep res entat ion

co un sel did

or d id 3 not make to the respondent. The a ffidavit merely recount[ed] what his counsel failed to do, but 4 [d id] no t m entio n what ac tio ns his co un sel pro m ise d to un de rtake .” 5 The dissenti ng Board Member, Lauri Steven Filppu, di sagreed with t his analysi s. She 6 ins tea d d ete rm ine d (a ) th at P irane j ha d, in f act , c om pli ed wi th t he Lozada requirements, and (b) 7 that, in l ight of this Court’ s decision i n Rabiu v. INS , 41 F.3d 879 (2d Cir. 1994), “at torney err or 8 sh ou ld p erm it [ Pi ran ej] to o bta in t he be ne fi ts o f s ect ion

24 5(i ) . . . , ev entho ug h th e n ece ssary 9 fi lin gs are untim ely un de r th at s tat

ute .” Th e d iss ent w ou ld h av e re m an de d th e ca se t o th e IJto 10 res olv e f

act ua l di sp ute s re gardi ng wh eth er atto rne y n eg lig en ce h ad act ua llyoc curre d and , if 11 Pi ran ej p rev ail ed on the fa cts , w ou ld h av e o rde red the IJ t o re op enpro cee din gs . 12 Piranej t imely filed a petiti on for review before this Court. He contends tha t, in the 13 cir cum stanc es o f h is c ase , th e B IAab us ed its dis cre tio n in

its ap pli cat ion

of the Lozada 14 req

uir em en ts. 15 16 17 D I S CUS S I ON 18 W e review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of disc retion. Ka ur v. BI A , 19 41 3 F .3 d 2 32 , 2 33 (2d Ci r. 2 00 5) ( pe r cu

riam) . “ An

ab us e o f d isc ret ion

m aybe fo un d in

tho se 20 cir cum stanc es whe re the Bo ard ’s d eci sio n p rov ide s n o ratio na l explanatio n, ine xp lic ab ly d ep art s 21 fr om

est ab lis he d p oli cie s, is d ev oid of any re aso nin g, or c ontai ns on ly s um m ary or c on clu so ry 22 statem en ts; that is to s ay , whe re the Bo ard ha s ac ted in an arbi trary o r ca

pri cio us m anne r.” Zhao 23 v. U. S. De

p’t of J us tic e , 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir. 2001) (i nternal c itati ons omitted).8 1 2 I. Th e Lozada Re qu ire men ts 3 The BIA, in its deci sion in In re Lozad a , o utl ine d c ert ain

req uir em ents f

or m ak ingan 4 in eff

ec ti ve as si st an ce of c ou ns el cl ai m: 5 A m otion based upon a c laim of ineff ective as sistance of counsel should be 6 supported by an affidavitof th e al leg edly aggrie ved respondent a ttesti ng to the 7 relevantfacts. In the case be fore us, that

affidavi t should incl ude a statement 8 tha t se ts f

or th i n d eta il t heag ree me nt t ha t w as en tered into wi th f or me r 9 co un sel

wi th res pe ct to thea cti on s to beta ken o n ap pe al an d wh at co un sel

did 10 or did not repre sent to the respondent in this regard. F urt he rm ore , bef

ore 11 alleg ati on s of in ef fe cti ve a ssi stanc e of

f orm er co un sel are pre sented to the 12 Board, former counsel must be infor med of the all egations and a llowed the 13 opportunity t o respond. Any subsequent response from counsel, or r eport of 14 counsel’s fail ure or refusal to respond, shoul d be subm itted with the motion. 15 Finally, if itis asser ted that pr ior counsel ’s hand li ng o f the case involve d a 16 vio lat ion

of eth ica l or leg al r esp on sib ili tie s, th e m oti on s ho uld ref lec t whe the r 17 a complaint has been filed wit h appropr iate dis ciplinary authorit ies regar ding 18 such repres entation, a nd if not, why not. 19 20 Lozada , 19 I. & N. Dec. at 639 (emphasis added)

. 21 As the BI A ha s its elf note d, the pri m ary

rat ion ale fo r th e im

po sit ion of the se r eq uir em ents 22 is t o p rov ide a b asi s f or d ete rm ini ng wh eth er the ass ist an ce p rov ide d b y c ouns el w as, in f act , 23 ineffective. Lozada , 1 9 I. & N . D ec. at 6 39 (“[ Th is] hig h s tan dard . . . is ne cessary . . . to h av e a 24 ba si s fo r a ss es si ng th e subs ta nt ia l nu mberof c la ims of i ne ffe ct iv e a ss is ta nc e o f co un se l t ha t c ome 25 be fo re the B oard. Whe re ess entia l i nf orm ati on is la ck ing , it is im

po ssi ble to ev alu ate the su bs tan ce 26 of such claim.”). A secondary purpose, a s we have acknowledged, is to “de te r mer it le ss claims.” 27 Twum v. INS, 411 F.3d 54, 59 (2d Cir. 2005). For both r eason s, t hi s Court ha s firmly upheld the 28 rel ev an ce o f t

he Lozada requirements. Se e Z he ng v. U. S. De

p’t of J us tic e , 4 09 F. 3d

43 , 47 (2d

Ci r. 29 20 05 ). A cco rdi ng ly, “[ w] e h av e u ph eld the ap plic ati on

of the se r eq

uir em ents .

. . wh ere 30 ap pro pri ate .” Twum , 4 11 F. 3d at 5 9. In it s rol e as g ate ke ep er, ho we ve r, t his Co urt ha s “n ot r eq

uir ed 31 a slavis h ad

he ren ce to the [Lozada ] r eq uir em ents. ” YiLo ng

Ya ng v. Go nz ale

s , 478 F.3d 133, 142-43To m ak e an ine ff ect ive ass ist an ce o f c ouns el c lai m , in ad dit ion to t he Lozada requirements, a 6 petiti oner must also show that he was pr ejudiced by couns el’s act ion, or inact ion. Yi Long Yang v. Go nz ale

s , 4 78 F. 3d

13 3, 14 2 (2 d C ir. 20 07 ). Th e B IAdid no t ad dre ss p rej ud ice in i ts decision i n the case before us . W e note, however, tha t should Pira nej be able t o demonstrate the ine ff ect ive ne ss o f h is c ouns el, it i s li ke ly t hat P irane j w ou ld b e ab le t o s ho w p rej ud ice , g ive n h is m arr iag e to a U .S . c iti zen in M arc h 2 00 1, an d th e p rob ab ili ty t hat hi s w if

e w ou ld h av e f

ile d an imm igrant pet ition on his behalf before April 30, 2001, had she been aware of the possi bility of doing so. The fact that the Disciplina ry Comm ittee c losed its investiga tion of Lombardi, noted by the 7 BI A i n it s d eci sio n, do es n ot s erv e to un de rm ine Pi ran ej’ s co m pli an ce w iththi s Lozada factor. Th e P irane

js r ef er t o a “Jam es H ak aj” in v ari ou s d oc um ents. Lo m bardi ref ers to “ Jam es 8 Hakanjan. ” It

is e vid ent f

rom the Pi ran ejs ’ Ju ly 1 6, 20 03 letter to t he De partm ental Di sci pli nary 9 1 (2d

Ci r. 2 00 7). Rathe r th anov er- de ter ren ce, our ai m

ha s b een ba lan ce. W e h av e re co gn ize d th at 2 requiri ng strictcompliance increase s the danger of foreclosing thos e claims that are colorable and 3 may be m eritor ious. Se e id

. 4 In t

he cas e b ef

ore us , it is und isp ute d th at P irane j satis fi ed

all but on e o f t

he Lozada 5 req

uir em ents. He informed his form er counsel, Lombardi, of the all egations aga inst him. Lom bardi 6 6 was given an opportunity, which he took, t o respond to the allegat ions. And Piranej fil ed a complaint 7 wi th t

he De partm ental D isc ipl inary Co mm itt ee. It is the fi rst Lozada req uir em ent – t

hat pe tit ion er 7 8 pre sent an af

fi davit “ set [t ing ] fo rthin

d eta il the ag ree m ent . . . w ithfo rm er c ouns el, ” Lozada , 1 9 I. 9 & N . D ec. at 6 39 – th at i s at iss ue in t his ap pe al. 10 11 II. Th e A lle ge d R ela tio ns hi p a nd th e S co pe of a n “ Ag ree men t” U nd er Lozada 12 A. The Alleged Relati onship 13 Pi ran ej’ s af fi davit outli ne s h is o ng oin g re lat ion sh ip w ithhis co un sel . In m id- Oc tob er 14 19 98 , P irane

j m et L om

bardi at h is l awof

fi ce i n A sto ria , N ewYo rk. Lo m bardi ha d b een 15 rec om

m en de d to Pi ran ej b y J am es H ak an jan , th e m anwh o h ad

ass ist ed Pi ran ej w ithhis ori gin al, 16 flawed, asylum application. Lom bardi descr ibed Hakanjan as a “prominent mem ber of the 8Committee, in which they re fer to “James Hakanjan,” that t he two partie s are referr ing to the

same person. 10 1 Al banian c om

m un ity ,” wh o w ou ld, “f

rom tim e to tim e, ” as k L om

bardi to “ see pe op le and

tryto 2 he lp t

he m .” At the ir O cto be r 19 98 m eet ing , L om bardi all eg ed ly i nf

orm ed Pi ran ej that “h e w ou ld 3 charge [] $1,200 to represe nt him in his removal proceedings,” a nd that Pira nej should “br ing 4 $500 on the heari ng date and the ba lance of the $1,200 would be payabl e on demand . . . from 5 tim e to tim e throu gh out th e p roc eed ing s. ” No written agre ement was entered into. 6 Af

ter a m ast er h ear ingin l ate Oc tob er, Pi ran ej p aid Lo m bardi $5 00 in c ash . P irane j di d 7 no t re cei ve a re cei pt. At the Oc tob er h ear ing , th e ca se w as a djo urn ed until De cem

be r 3, at whic h 8 tim e P irane

j co nc ed ed

his rem ov ab ili ty and

sou gh t po lit ica l as ylum

an d w ithho ldi ng of

rem ov al 9 as reli ef. Piranej’s ne xt hearing was s cheduled for Marc h 9, 1999. Piranej al leges thathe made 10 num ero us cal ls t o L om bardi ’s o ff

ice in an atte m

pt t o p rep are fo r th at h ear ing , b ut t hat hi s 11 m ess ag es w ere no t re tur ne d. On the ev en ing of

Mar ch8, Pi ran ej m et w ithLo m bardi at a 12 restaur ant to disc uss the case , and Lombardi “assured him not to worry and [that] he would take 13 car e o f i t.” At

the he ari ng on

Mar ch9, the IJ d en ied

Pi ran ej’ s p eti tio ns fo r re lie f. Ac co rdi ng to 14 Pi ran ej, “[ a] s so on as [ he an d h is f

ian cée ] l ef

t th e co urt

roo m , M r. L om

bardi inf orm ed [t he m ] t hat 15 fo r hi m

to d o th e ap pe al h e w anted $3 00 as s oo n a s p os sib le s o th at h e co uld enter his 16 ap pe aranc e as [P irane j’s ] l eg al c ouns el b ef

ore the de ad lin e. ” Afe w d ay s later , P irane j w ent to 17 Lo m

bardi ’s n ewof

fi ce, no w i n M anhattan, to p aythe m on ey . It wa s at thi s m eet ing that 18 Lom

bardi all egedly advise d the couple notto get married, due to t he fact that Pir anej would have 19 to leave t he country pri or to adjust ing his sta tus. 20 As of April 7, 1999, Piranej had a n appeal pending be fore the BIA and, apparent ly, a 21 $4 00 ba lan ce o uts tan din g to Lo m bardi . A ft er h is w ed din g, Pi ran ej w ent to Lo m bardi ’s o ff

ice ,Pi ran ej s tat es t hat th is m eet ingtoo k p lac e in Ju ly 2 00 2. In h is r esp on se t o th e al leg ati on s, 9 Lo m bardi co ns ist entlyref

ers to t he m eet ing as t ak ing pla ce i n July 20 01 , a date p ote nti all y m ore favo rab le t o P irane

j si nc e it wa s o nly tw o o r so m onths af

ter the Ap ril 30 , 2 00 1 f

ili ng de ad lin e. Lo m bardi stated

that: 10 Mr. an d M rs. Pi ran ej c lai m . . . to have att em

pte d to co nta ct m e af

ter the y did get married . . . . While they may have called the office, they did not provi de us with any information regardi ng their marital status. . . . The office was in a frenzy of activit y. If I had been aware t hat Mr. and Mrs . P irane

j w ere m arr ied , I w ou ld h av e ad vis ed my c lie nt M r. P irane

j to have a petiti on filed on his behal f so that he could bene fit from the change in the law.

11 1 all eg ed ly t o “ tak e [ his ] f ile s to an oth er atto rne y, ” an d to ld L om bardi ab out hi s m arr iag e. Pi ran ej 9 2 states that su

bs eq ue ntl y, in Aug us t 20 02 , L om bardi he lpe d N eza , P irane j’s U. S. cit ize n w if

e, fi ll 3 out and file an I- 130 applicat ion, without any furthe r fee. 4 In argu ingthat, g ive n L om bardi ’s a lle ge d e arl ier

advic e o n th e su

bje ct o f m arr iag e an d it s 5 imm igr ati on

co ns eq ue nc es, Lo m

bardi sh ou ld h av e ad

vis ed him of the ch an ge in s ect ion

24 5(i ) 6 filing deadli nes, Piranej alleges fact s indicat ing that t he nature of his r elations hip with Lombardi 7 wa s th at o f a

ret ain er a gre em ent, u

nd er whic h L om

bardi wa s to pro vid e g en era l le ga l as sis tan ce 8 to P irane

j in Pi ran ej’ s ef

fo rts to avo id r em ov al. An d, in t his res pe ct, Lo m

bardi ’s a ssi stanc e to 9 Pi ran ej’ s w if

e in fi lin g th e I- 13 0 a

pp lic ati on , w ith out f

urt he r f ee, su pp ort s su cha v iewof

the ir 10 relati onship. 11 Yet the exactparameters of this att orney-cli ent rela tionship ar e unclear. Lombardi 12 adm its that in

19 99 , h e expla ine d to Pi ran ej and his the n-f

ian cée Ne za t

hat th e law r eq

uir ed an 13 alien to l eave the Unite d States in or der to adjus t his sta tus following a marriage to a U.S. 14 cit ize n. But he states that hi s ag ree m ent w ithPi ran ej w as o nly to r ep res ent P irane

j in his 15 imm igrati on proceedings . A nd no tw ith stand inghis co mm ents t hat he pro vid ed

oth er c lie nts wi th 16 this information, Lom bardi denie s that he had a ny affirm ative obli gation to i nform Piranej of 10At that ti m e I h ad

ov er f ive hund red act ive cas es. Whe n th e law w as ch an ge d, I attem

pte d to rev iewfi les an d to inf orm all m arr ied

cli ents who wo uld benefit that t he law had been changed.

12 1 the ch an ge in t

he fi lin g d ead lin es f

or s ect ion 24 5(i ). H e d esc rib es h is s ub seq ue nt w ork

on the I2 13 0 f

ili ng as “ a f

av or t o [ his ] c lie nt, Ar

tur Pi ran ej. ” 3 Like the diss enting BIA mem ber, we believe that the e xact natur e of the 4 Pi ran ej/ Lo m

bardi rel ati on sh ip c anon ly b e d ete rm ine d a ft er a dd iti on al f act -f ind ing . H en ce, if 5 that rel ationship c ould, on a plausi ble readi ng of the facts, satis fy Lozada , a rem an d f or f act

6 fi nd ing wo uld

be ne ces sar

y. It i s th is Lozada question to whic h we therefore turn. 7 8 B. Th e S

co peof Lozada ’s Agreement 9 To ex am ine thi s q ue sti on pro pe rly , w e m

us t be gin byloo kin g at Lozada itself, and atthe 10 possible t ype of agreement involved in thatcase. In doing s o, we note that t he BIA in Lozada 11 prescri bed the contentof the aggrieved al ien’s affidavit i n light of the “ca se before us,” 19 I. & 12 N. Dec. at 639 (“A motion based upon a claim of ineffective assist ance of counsel should be 13 supported by an affidavit

. . . . In the case be fore us , that affidavit shoul d include a st atement 14 that se ts f

ort h in de tai l th e ag ree m ent th at w as e nte red int o w ithfo rm er c ouns el .

. . .” (em ph asi s 15 added)), and t herefore may have tailore d the requir ement to com port with the particul ar facts of 16 Lozada

. Wh a t w e re th e s e f a c ts ? 17 In Lozada , the alle gation made by petitione r was that, afterfiling a Notice t o Appeal the 18 decision of the I J, his counsel had failed to submit a brie f in the petit ioner’s appeal to the BIA. 19 Id. at 638. Not surpri singly, the BIA re quired an affidavit from Lozada setti ng forth in detai l the 20 ag ree m en t be tw een Lo zad a an d h is f

orm er c ouns el and

all eg ing , w ithsp eci fi city, the “ac tio ns to13 1 be tak enon

ap pe al and

wh at c ouns el d id o r di d n ot r ep res ent to the res po nd ent in thi s re gard. ” Id. 2 at 6 39 . G ive n th e n ature o f L oz ad a’s gri ev an ce a ga ins t hi s attor ne y, that in fo rm ati on

wa s 3 essentia l to deter mine whether Lozada’s lawyer ha d acted proper ly. See id. (“W he re e sse nti al 4 inf

orm ati on is l ack ing , it

is i m po ssi ble to e va luate the su bs tan ce o f .

. . [an in ef

fe cti ve ass ist an ce] 5 cla im . In

the ins tant ca se, fo r ex am ple , th e re sp on de nt h as n ot a lle ge d, let alo ne est ab lis he d, that 6 fo rm er c ouns el e ve r ag ree d to pre pare a bri ef on ap pe al o r w as e ng ag ed

to u nd ert ak e th e ta sk .” ). 7 In t

he cas e b ef

ore us , th e B IA , u sin g th e Lozada rub ric , f au lte d P irane

j f or f ail ingto s et 8 fo rthin d eta il the ag ree m ent enter ed int o “ wi th r esp ect

to t he act ion s to be tak enan d what 9 represent ation counsel did or did not make to the r espondent.” Itcontinued, noti ng that “[t]he 10 af

fi davit m ere ly r eco unts what hi s co un sel fa ile d to do , b ut d oe s n ot m entio n what ac tio ns his 11 co un sel pro m ise d to un de rtake .” In d oin g s o, the BI A a pp lie d m ech an ica llyto P irane j’s cas e a 12 framew ork that was der ived from the particularattorney- client r elations hip claimed in Lozada , a 13 ve ry d if

fe rent ca se. An d it

did so , d esp ite the fa ct that Lozada itself expre ssly noted t hat the 14 requirement applie d “in the cas e before us” (and pr esumably in those with similar at torney/cl ient 15 arr an ge m ents) . In oth er w ord s, the BI A f

ail ed to c on sid er the po ssi bil ityof a g en era l re tai ne r 16 ag ree m en t an d whe the r, g ive n th e n ature o f t hat ty pe of ag ree m ent, P irane

j’s all eg ati on s, as t

he y 17 stood, substant ially complied with t he aims of Lozada . As the dissent ing Board Member noted, 18 it w as p rec ise ly b eca us e L om bardi fa ile d to inf

orm Pi ran ej o f t

he ne ed to “ tak e ac tio n” that th ere 19 was no more specific agreement to take act ion with respe ct to the s ection 245(i ) waiver. 20 As sum ing the ex ist en ce o f a ret ain er r elatio ns hip , and that su cha re lat ion sh ip c angiv e ri se t o an 21 ineffectiveness cl aim, it is hard to se e what more Piranej could have asserte d. 22 23 C. Additional Conside rationsSu cha f ind ingde pe nd s in

part o n a qu est ion sep arate f

rom tho se d isc us sed

ear lie r in the tex t: 11 Di d L om bardi ’s f ail ure to i nf

orm Pi ran ej o f t

he ch an ge in t

he sec tio n 2 45 (i) fi lin g d ead lin es c o n s ti tute in a d e qu a te a s s is tan c e o f c o un s e l f o r d e p o rt a ti o np ro c e e d in g p urp o s e s ? See, e.g. , Rabiu v. INS , 41 F.3d 879, 882 (2d Cir. 1994) (st ating thatto demonstrate a Fifth Amendm ent due process vi olation, a pe titione r must “show that his counsel ’s performance was so ineffective as to have impinged upon the fundamental fairness of the hea ring” (i nternal quot ation marks and citati on omitted)).

14 1 If

the IJ f ind s th at a

ge ne ral ret ain er a gre em ent di d e xis t be tw een Pi ran ej and

Lo m bardi , 2 it w ill be fo r th e B IAin t he fi rst ins tan ce t o d ete rm ine (a) wh eth er the ex ist en ce o f a ge ne ral 3 retaine r agreement can give r ise to ine ffective assist ance of counsel cla ims in the 4 imm igrati on/removal context; ( b) assuming such claims can be made, what the equivalentof the 5 Lozada agreement requirement should be i n such situat ions; and (c ) whether the allegat ions 6 m ad e b y P irane

j as to L om

bardi ’s f ail ure s to act

are su ff ici ent to co m

ply su bs tantia llywi th s uc h 7 a f un cti on al Lozada framew ork. 8 9 III. Equitable Tolli ng, Nunc Pro Tunc , a nd Se cti on 24 5(I ) 10 Until the ques tion of Piranej’ s compliance with Lozada is r eso lve d, an d L om bardi ’s 11 ass ist an ce d ete rm ine d to have be enine ff ect ive, any d isc us sio n o f whe the r in ef fe cti ve ass ist an ce 11 12 of

co un sel co uld

ser ve , e ith er thro ug h e qu ita

ble tol lin g o r nu

nc pro tun c re lie f, as an e xc ep tio n to 13 the Ap ril 30 , 2 00 1 s ect ion 24 5(i ) f ili ng de ad lin e is pre m ature. Th is C ourt h as n ot c on sid ere d 14 whether sect ion 245(i) a dmits of these equitable r emedies. And, the questions shoul d, in any 15 event, be addre ssed by the BIA in the first inst ance. See, e.g. , IN S v . V en tura , 537 U.S. 12, 16 16 (2002). Since t he BIA m ajorit y expressly de clined to s peak to these issues when consi dering 17 Pi ran ej’ s m oti on

to r eo pe n, the les s sa id a bo ut t he m byus at this tim e, the be tte r. 1815 C ONCL US I ON 1 2 Fo r th e f

ore go ingrea so ns , w e G RA NT the pe tit ion

fo r re vie w, VA CA TE the BI A’ s 3 order, and REMAND the case to t he BIA for further proceedi ngs consiste nt with this opinion.