Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60452

S H A N F U C U I, P et i t i on er v. ERI C H

. H OLD ER, J R. , U. S. ATTORN EY GE N ERA L , R esp on d en t

P et i t i on f

or R evi ew of

an O rder of t h e B oard of

I m m i grati on A pp eal s B I A N o. A 94- 803- 568

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d P R A D O an d H AY N E S , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * S h an F u C u i , a na t i ve an d ci t i ze n o f C h i n a, entered t h e U n i t ed S t ates
w i t ho ut b e i ng l awf

ul l y ad m i t t e d orpar o l e d a nd wi t ho ut a v al i d e nt r y do c um e nt
o n Jul y 15 , 20 06
. Acc o r di ng t o a r e po r t b y t he b o r de r pa t r o l , Cui s t at e d t hats he
en t ered t h e U n i t ed S t ates i n order t o l i ve i n N ew Y o rk a n d to becom e a C hri st i an, and s he s t at ed t hat s he di d not fear per se c ut i on i f r em ove d t o Ch i na. An i m m i gr at i o n o f

f i c e r det e r m i ne d t hatC uiw as i nad m i s s i bl e as a n i m m i gr ant United States Court of A pp eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60452

2 n ot i n po sse ssion of a v a l i d en try d ocu m en t un d er 8 U

. S

. C

. § 11 8 2 (a)( 7 )(A )(i )( I)
a n d or d e re d h e r r e m o v e d to C h in a p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C

. § 1 2 2 5 (b )(1)

. B ef ore the rem oval w as carri ed ou t , a n a syl u m of f i cer i n t ervi ew ed C u ion O ct ober 16, 200 6; t h e of f i cer determ i n ed that C u i h ad a credi bl e fear t h at upon retu rn i n g to C h i n a sh e w ou l d be pe rsec u ted be ca u se o f h er re l i giou s fa i th

. T h e day af

t er t h e o ffi cer’ s r eport w as com pl et ed, t h e D epa rt m en t of H om el an d S ecuri t y ( D H S ) persona l l y serv ed C u iw i t h a noti ce t o app ear, c har gi ng he r a s r e m o va bl e und e r § 11 82 ( a) ( 7) (A) ( i ) ( I ) as an al i e n pr e s e nt i n t he U n ite d S ta te s w h o h a d n o t b e e n a d m itt e d o r p a r o l e d a n d w h o w a s n o t in possessi on of

a val i d en t ry d o cu m en t
. H ow ever, t h e noti ce t o app ear di d n ot i n f orm C u iof

t h e date or t im e o f h e r i m m i grati on hea ri n g, st ati n g t h at t h ose d eta i l s w ere “[ t] o b e d eterm i n ed

. ” O n Jan u ary 11, 2 007 , C u ii n f orm ed the Im m i grati on an d N atural i zati on Se r vi c e ( I N S) t hat she ha d b e e n r e l e as e d f r o m i m m i gr at i o n de t e nt i o n o n b o nd and w o ul d b e r e s i di ng ata c e r t ai n a dd re s s . On Ja nuar y 26 , 2 00 7, t he i m m igr a tion co u rt m a il e d n o tice to C u i’ s a tto rn e y , R o n a ld H igg in s, th at a m aster i m m i gr at i on hear i ng had bee n sc hedul ed i n her c as e f orFebr uary 26, 2007, at 9: 00 a . m . N o t i c e w as n ot sen t t o Cui di r e c t l y. On Feb r uar y 7, 2 00 7, t he i m m i gr at i o n c o ur t m ai l e d a n a m e nde d no t i c e t o H i gg i ns i nf o r m i ng hi m t hatt he
m as t er h ear i ng i n C ui ’ s c as e had bee n r es c hedul ed f orM ar c h 19, 2007, at 9: 00
a . m . A s w i th the pr ev i ou s n oti ce, th e a m en d ed n o tic e w a s n ot sen t directl y to C u i. W hen nei t her C ui nor H i ggi ns appe ar ed att he M ar c h 19, 2007 hear i ng, t h e I m m i grati on Ju dg e ( IJ) ordered C u i ’ s r em oval i n absen t i a pu rsuan t t o 8 U

. S

. C

. § 12 29a (b) ( 5) (A ) the sam e day

. C u isec u red new coun selan d ti m el y f i l ed
a m o tio n t o r e o p e n r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s o n M a y 1 4 , 2 0 0 7
. S ee § 1 2 2 9 a (b ) ( 5 ) ( C) (se ttin g 1 8 0 -d a y li m ita tion s p e rio d in ce rta in ca se s a n d n o li m ita tion in oth e rs ). C u iasser t ed that sh e d i d n ot rec ei ve n ot i ce of t h e i m m i grati on hea ri n g evenN o. 08- 60452

Lozada requires that an ali en fili ng a motion to reope n base d onin effectiveassi stanc e 1 of co unse l: (1) submitanaffi davit settin g forthindetail the agreement entered intowith former coun sel reg ardi ngth e ac t io ns to be takenonth e alie n’s beh alf and what coun sel did or did not r epresent to the ali en in this reg ard; (2) info rm coun sel of the all eg atio ns a nd all ow him an o pportu nityto respon d — anyrespo nse or r eport of co unse l’s failure o r re fusalto respon d sho uld be submitted with the motion ; an d (3) state wheth er acompl aint h ad b eenfil ed with the appropriat e disciplinary authority if c oun sel’s han dlin g of th e ca se i nvolved a vio lati ono f le g al ore thic al re sp on sib ilitie s. Lozada , 19 I. & N. De c . at639
. Th e Lozada fr a me wo rkh a s b ee nqu es ti on edb u t re main s goo d law. See Inre Compean , 24I . & N. Dec. 7 1 0 , 7 2 6

–2 7 (B IA 2 0 0 9) (ov errulin gp orti on s o f Lozadaand concludin g that n o co nstitution al ri gh t to co u n se l or ef

fe ctive a ssi st a n ce of co u n se l exis tsi ni mmi grati onp ro ce edin g s) ; vacat ed by Inre Compean , 25I . & N. Dec. 1, 3(B IA 20 09) (initiating

rule-maki ngan d in structi ng courts to “applyth e pr e- Compeanstan dards to all pendingand futuremoti ons to r eopenba sed uponin effectiveassi stanc e o f counsel , regardl ess of when such motion s were file d”). We conc ludeth at this matter should be consid ered un der the law e xi sting atth e ti me th e IJ ma de his decisi on such that Lozada appli es. Inany ev ent, we do not find an abu se of discreti on in the IJ ’s dete rminationth at Cui’s failure t o s ee k anexplan atio n for h er attorn ey’s co ndu ct do om s h eri n ef

fe ctive a ssi st a n ceo f co u n se l cl aim

. 3 t ho ugh s he had c o nt i nuo us l y r e s i de d at t he a ddr e s s di s c l o s e d t o I N S o f f i c i al s a nd
c he c ke d t he m ai l dai l y, and t hatshe o nl y l e ar ne d o f he r r e m o va lo r de r w he n s he h i red a n ew attorn e y a n d ask ed h i m to ch eck on h er co u rt da te. C u iset f orth t hes e c l ai m s i n a s w or n dec l ar at i on, i n w hi c h she al so s t at ed t hat s he “ had i n t en ded t o app ear f

or al l of m y Im m i grati on C ou rt hea ri n gs an d the on l y reason I di d no t a ppe aro n M ar c h 1 9, 200 7 w as b e c aus e I di d no t r e c e i ve no t i c e o f t he h e a r in g .” The I J de ni e d t he m ot i on a f t e r f i ndi ng t hatt he s e r vi c e o f t he he ar i ng
n o tic e o n C u i’ s a tt o r n e y w a s le g a lly s u ffic ie n t a n d th a t C u i h a d fa ile d to co m p ly
w i t h t h e requ i rem en t s f or al l egi n g i n ef

fect i ve assi st an ce of

coun selun der In re Loz ada , 19 I

. & N

. D ec . 637, 637–40 ( B IA 1988)

. The I J ac know l edge d “ w hat 1 h as becom e a reoc curi n g cl ai m i n cases i n vol vi n g att orney H i gg i ns a nd G u errer o: no not i c e w as pr ovi ded; t hei r c l i ent di d not know t hey had t o appear ; t her e w as no c om m uni c at i on be t w ee n at t or ney and c l i ent , ” but t he I J sa i d t hat “ [ s] uch has b ee n con su m i n g too m u ch of th i s C ou rt’ s l i m i ted ad m i n i strative ti m e.” T h e IJ al s o e xp r e s s e d f

r us t r at i o n wi t h Cui ’ s c ur r e nt a t t o r ne y f o r o nl y e nga gi ng i n t heN o. 08- 60452

4 “ m ost l i m i t ed” veri f

i cat i on of

t h e fact s at h an d, f

or ap pa rentl y fai l i n g t o revi ew t h e rec ord or t o contactC u i ’ s previ ou s at t orney, an d f or f i l i n g a m ot i on t o reopen t hat “ doe s not appear t o be w el l

- gr ounded i n fac t orw ar r ant ed byex i st i ng l aw or b y a n y g oo d fa i th arg u m en t w h a tsoev er.” C u iapp eal ed, bu t t h e B oard of Im m i grati on A pp eal s ( B IA ) d i sm i ssed af t er f i ndi ng t hat the not i c e s ent t o a t t or ney H i ggi ns w as l egal l y s uf f i c i ent and t hat C u i’ s fa il u re to c o m p ly w ith th e re q u ire m e n ts o f Loz ada f or assert i n g a cl ai m of i n ef fect i ve assi st an ce of

coun selj u st i f

i ed the IJ’ s det erm i n ati on t h at C u ifai l ed t o dem on st rat e i n ef

fect i ve assi st an ce of

cou n sel

. C u it i m el y f i l ed a p et i t i on f

or
r e v ie w in th is co u r t. The de ni alo f

a m o t i o n t o r e o pe n i s r e vi e w e d f o r a n a bus e o f

di s c r e t i o n. G alve z- V

ergara v. G on zal es , 48 4 F

. 3 d 79 8 , 80 1 (5th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ). “N eit h er th e B IA
n or t h e I J ab u ses i t s di scr et i on so l on g as i t i s n ot capri ci ou s, raci al l y i n vi di ou s,
u tt e r ly w ith o u t fo u n d a tio n in th e e v id e n c e , o r o th e r w is e s o a b e r r a tio n a l th a t it i s ar b i tra r y r a th e r tha n the resu l t of an y p erce p ti b l e ra ti on a lap p roa ch

. ” I d. ( i n t erna l qu ot ati on m arks an d ci t ati on om i t t ed). “ Iti s by def i n i t i on an abu se of di scr et i on w h en an IJ m ak es an err or of l aw or h as consi dered the w rong fact ors i n app l yi n g h i s di scr et i on ( t h e j u dg m en t cal lw as m ad e as t o i ssues or fact ors n ot
w i th i n the scop e of h i s d i scre ti on a ry p ow ers). ” A l arcon-C h avez v. G on zal es , 403 F

. 3d 343 , 345 ( 5th C i r. 200 5) ( i n t erna lqu ot ati on m arks, ci t ati on s, an d f oot n ot es o m itted ). W e f i n d n o err or i n t h e B IA ’ s determ i n ati on t h at noti ce t o C u i ’ s at t orney
w as suf f i ci en t
. Sect i on 122 9a(b) ( 5) (A ) of t h e I m m igr a tion an d N ati on al i t y A ct ( I N A ) pr ovi des t hat A n y al i en w h o, af

t er w ri t t en noti ce requ i red u n der pa ragrap h ( 1) or ( 2) of [ § 122 9( a) ] ha s been p rovi ded t o the ali en or t h e al i en ’ s c ou n sel of r ec or d, doe s not at t end a pro c ee di ng und er t hi s se c t i on, shal lbe ordered rem oved i n absen t i a i f t h e Servi ce es t abli shes by cl ear, u n equ i vocal , an d conv i n ci n g evi den ce that the w ri t t en noti ce w as so pro vi ded and t hat t he al i en i s r em ovab l e . . . . The w r i t t en not i c e b yN o. 08- 60452

Cui argu es onlyth at notice t o h er attorn eywas insufficie nt to notify her. Sh e do es 2 not argue that personalserviceupon her was practicable

. Nor does she po int to anyevidence th a t th e im plie d fi n di n gth a t pe rs on al n otic e toh erwa s i mp ractic ab lei s in co rr ec t.

Specifically , th e IJ fo undth at Cui did not determi ne wheth er Hi ggins receive d n otice 3 and, if h e did, w hathis expla nationw as for failin g to appear. Her only“evidence” on this point is th at her attorney’s failur e toapp ear at the hearin g “calls i nt o que stionwhether or not Petitio ner’ s att orne y receive d th e notice of hearin g.” This statement is insufficie nt to me et h er b u rd eno na pp eal toth isc ourto f a na dver seru lin go nadis cr etio n a rymo ti on .

Th e gove rnment asserts that we lack jurisdictionbe cau se C ui did not c omplywith 4 th e re qu ir em entso f Lozada . Whil e C ui’ s failur e tofulfill Lozada’s re quirements maybefat al to h er c lai m, they do not deprive this court of jurisdictionw henthe i ssue wa s rai sed b eforeth e IJ and BIA. 5 t h e A t t orney G en eral sh al lb e con si dered su f f i ci en t f or purp oses of t h i s s u bp aragrap h i f provi ded a t the m ost recent a dd ress provi ded u n d e r [§ 1 2 2 9 (a )(1)(F )].
Th e s ec t i on o f

t he I N A r ef

er enc ed i n § 12 29a(b) ( 5) (A ) , § 1229( a) , pr ovi des t hat
w r itt e n n o tic e o f a n im m ig r a tio n h e a r in g o r o f a n y c h a n g e o r p o s tp o n e m e n t in t h e t i m e an d p l ace of such p roceedi n gs “ sha l lbe gi ven in p erson t o t h e al i en ( or, i f p erso n a l serv i ce is no t p r a cti ca b l e, th rou gh serv i ce b y m a i lto t h e a l i en or to th e a lie n ’ s c o u n s e l o f r e c o r d , if a n y ).” § 1 2 2 9 (a )(1 ), (a )(2 )(A ); see al so 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3
. 1 3 ( “[A ] N oti ce t o A p p ea r or N oti ce of R em ov a l H ea ri n g sh a l l b e serve d to t he al i en i n per so n, ori f per so nal servi c e i s not pr ac t i c abl e, s hal lbe s er ved by
r e g u la r m a il to th e a lie n o r th e a lie n ’ s a tt o r n e y o f r e c o r d .”). W h e r e p e r s o n a l d e l i v e r y i s n o t p r a c t i c a b l e , t h e s t a t u t e s p e c i f i c a l l y a l l o ws 2
m ai l i n g of

noti ce ei t h ert o t he a l i e n orh e r a tt o r n e y . Mart i n v. M u ka sey , 517 F. 3d 120 1, 120 3 ( 10th C i r. 200 8) ( n ot i ce t o coun selsa tisfies st atutor y n ot i ce requ i rem en t s)

. I t does n ot requ i re both. C u iha s w h ol l y fai l ed to show t h at her at t or ney di d not r ece i ve th e n ot i c e s ent
. She m ade no at t em pt be f or e t he I J, 3 BI A, o r he r e t o c o m pl y w i t h Loz ada or ot h erw i se sh ow i n ef fect i ve assi st an ce of
co uns e l b e yo nd h e r b ar e a l l e ga t i o ns t hathe r a t t o r ne y w as r e s po ns i bl e f o r t he
n on ap pea ran ce. W e h ave hel d t h at t h e gen eral ap pl i cat i on of t h e Loz ada 4N o. 08- 60452

Whileth ese c ases involve th e po tential prej udic e to a jury of a j udge actin g in such 5 a w ay as t o b ec om e awitn es s inth e ca se , web eliev e th a t iti s gen er allytru e th a t aj u dge ca n n ot b e b oth a j u dge a n d witn es s inth e sa mec a se . See Rec ent Ca ses, 28H ARV . L. R EV . 100 , 115(19 14)(a ddressin g the histo ry of this rule). Allo wingC ui to use the IJ ’s re marks ab out attorney Higgins ’s gen er alco nd uc tas evi d en c e o f he rine f f ec t iv e a s s is t an c e c la im w ou ldvio late this ge neral rule

. Inanyevent, we do n ot think that th e IJ’s offha nd remark was intende d as evidence thatC ui’ s att orne y was in effective . 6 r e q u ir e m e n ts is n o t a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . La r a v. Trom i nski , 216 F. 3d 487, 498 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T h e IJ ’ s s ta te m e n ts th a t t h e r e h a v e b e e n p r o b l e m s w ith th is
a tt o r n e y a r e n o t e v id e n c e o f in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. See , e . g. , Un i t ed St at e s v. Pai va , 8 9 2 F .2 d 1 4 8 , 1 5 8 (1 s t C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) (a ju d g e m a y n o t g e n e r a lly te s tify in a c a s e o v e r w h ic h h e is p r e s id in g ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. C i sneros , 491 F. 2d 1 0 6 8 , 1 0 7 5

– 7 6 (5t h C ir. 1 9 7 4 ) ( sa m e ). 5 G i ve n o ur hi ghl y de fe r e nt i alr e vi e w of B I A de c i s i o ns o n m o t i o ns t o r e o pe n,
w e can n ot fi n d erro r i n th i s d ecisio n . S ee G om ez- Palaci os v. Hol d er , 560 F. 3d 3 5 4 , 3 5 8 (5th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) (“ In rev i ew i n g t h e den i a l of a m oti on to reo p en , th is
c o ur t a ppl i e s a hi ghl y de fe r e nt i alabus e - o f

- di s c r e t i o n s t and ar d, r e ga r dl e s s o f t he b a s is o f th e a lie n ’ s re q u e s t fo r re lie f.”). A c c o r d in g ly , th e p e tit io n fo r re v ie w is DE NI ED

.