2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-4-2005 

# H an v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-1444

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" H an v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1399. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1399NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 04- 1444 DONG MYUNG HA N; E UN MI HAN; L E E T O HAN; L E E M O HAN, P eti ti o n ers

v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UNI T E D S T AT E S ; BU RE AU OF CI T I Z E NS HI P AND

I M M I G RA TI O N SER V I CE S, R e sp o n d e n ts O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of O r der s of the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (B IA N o s . A 7 6 -1 4 1 -5 9 6 , A 7 6 -1 4 1 -5 9 7 , A 77- 734- 709 and A 77- 734- 707) Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 10, 2005 B efore: N Y G A A R D , M cK E E A N D R E N D E L L , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 4, 2005) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. A p p e llan ts p e tit io n f

o r re v iew o f

a d e c isio n b yth e B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a lsB o th o f th e H a n c h ild re n a re C a n a d ia n c itiz e n s b yb ir th . 1 2 ( “B I A ”) aff

i r m i ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) deni al of thei rm ot i on t o r eopen p roc ee d ing s b ase d o n inef fe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel. W e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . F o r t h e re a s o n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n . I . Fac t ualand Pr oc e dur alBackg r ound A s w e w ri t e sol el yfor the p art i es, ou r r eci t at i on of the fact s w i l l be li m i t ed to tho se n ec essa ryto o u r de term ination . P eti ti o n ers D o n g M yu n g H an an d E u n M i H an are nat i ves of Sout h K or ea w ho w er e gr ant ed l anded i m m i gr ants t atus i n C anada as of J une 6, 1981. Subse quent l y , the H ans and thei rtw o chi l dr en w er e admi t t ed t o the U ni t ed St at es 1 at N iagra F all s, N ew Y o rk a s n o n -i m m igran t visi tors au tho ri ze d to rem ain f o r a tem p o rary per i od of t i m e. T he H ans r emai ned i n the U ni t ed St at es pas tthe expi r at i on of the t empora ryper i od, and the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( “I N S”) comm ence d re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s . A c c o rd in g to a n IN S in v e stig a to rym e m o d a ted S e p tem b e r 5 , 2 0 0 0 , N o tice s to A ppearw er e mai l ed t o the H ans ’ “att orneyof r ecor d, J ohn H ykel ” ( A R 220) on orar ound thatdat e. A nd, on O ct ober10, 2000, i n a s ubm i s s i on t o the I m m i gr at i on C our tent i t l ed “W r i t t en Pl eadi ng, ” M r . H ykel s t at ed thatM r . and M r s . H an, thr ough couns el , conce ded pr opers ervi ce of

s uch N ot i ces t o A ppear . ( A R 145. ) W hi l e s ervi ng as couns el forthe H a n s , M r. H yk e l m o v e d f o r, a n d w a s g ra n te d , s e v e ra l c o n tin u a n c e s b e f o re th e IJ . T h e H an s d o n o t dispu te th e f ac t of M r. H yk el’s rep rese n tat ion b u t al lege that M r.A p p rov al of su ch an ap p li ca ti o n w o u ld as sistthe H an s in a d justi n g their gre en ca rd 2 s t atus . “A n adj us t m entof s t atus i s m er el ya pr ocedur al m echa ni s m byw hi ch an a l i en [al r eadyw i thi n the U ni t ed St at es ] i s as s i m i l at ed t o the pos i t i on of one s eeki ng t o ent erthe U ni t ed St at es . ” Matter of R ainf ord , 2 0 I. & N . D e c . 5 9 8 , 6 0 1 (B IA 1 9 9 2 ); s ee al s o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 5 (a). P eti ti o n ers n o te th at M r. H yk el w as su sp en d ed fro m p rac ti ce b ythe D isci p li n aryB o ard 3 of the Supr eme C our tof Penns y l vani a on M ar ch 8, 2001, m or e than one mont h befor e he fi l ed thei rs econd a ppl i cat i on. I n fac t , on thatdat e, M r . H ykel w as s us pended f r om p ra c tic e f

o r t w o y e a rs b e f

o re th e E x e c u tiv e O f

f ic e o f Im m ig ra tio n R e v ie w (“ E O IR ” ). (A R 4 0 . ) H yk el w as later su sp en d ed b ythe S u p rem e C o u rto f P en n sy lvan ia on Jan u ary 2 3 , 2 0 0 2 . (A R 6 0 -61 . ) 3 H ykel w as hi r ed t o pur s ue gr een c ar ds and more s peci fi cal l y , t o fi l e an A ppl i cat i on for A l i en Em pl oym entC ert i fi cat i on bas ed upon an of ferM r . H an had r ece i ved for empl oym enti n the U ni t ed St at es . ( A R 129. ) M r . H ykel di d s ubm i ts uch an a ppl i cat i on 2 on behal f of M r . H an i n O ct oberof 2000. T her eaf t er , on J anuary24, 2001, the N ew J er s eyD epart m entof Labor( “D O L ”) i nform ed M r . H ykel that“ce r t ai n corr ect i ons and amendm ent s ” pert i nentt o the H ans ’ appl i cat i on w er e r equi r ed; the D O L advi s ed thatthe d o cu m en ts w ere to b e su b m itted b yM arc h 1 0 , 2 0 0 1 . (A R 1 2 9 , 1 3 6 . ) M r . H ykel di d notr es pond t o the D O L ’ s r eques t ; how ever , Pet i t i oner s cl ai m that theynonethel es s engage d hi m agai n, t o s ubm i ta s econd a ppl i cat i on foral i en empl oym ent on M r . H an’ s behal f, w hi ch he di d on A pr i l 16, 2001. B eca us e the appl i cat i on w as fi l ed 3 befor e A pr i l 30, 2001, the H ans w er e el i gi bl e underI N A § 245( i ) t o fi l e foradj us t m entof s ta tu s , i . e. , to p u rsu e a g re e n c a rd , d u rin g re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s w ith o u t f irst h a v in g toU nderI N A § 245( i ) , an al i en phy s i cal l ypr es enti n the U ni t ed St at es , w ho i s the 4 benef i ci aryof: ( i ) a pet i t i on forcl as s i fi cat i on unders ect i on 204 thatw as fi l ed w i th the A t t orneyG ener al on orbefor e A pr i l 30, 2001; or ( i i ) an appl i cat i on for a l abor cert i fi cat i on under s ect i on 212( a) ( 5) ( A ) that w as f il ed p u rsua n t t o the re g u lat ion s o f th e S ec reta ry o f L a b o r on o r be fo re s u c h d a te ; . . . m a y ap p lyto th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l f o r th e a d ju stm e n t o f

h is o r h e r sta tu s to thatof an a l i en la w ful l yadmi t t ed forperm anentr es i dence . T he A t t orney G ener al m ayacc epts uch appl i cat ion onl yi f the al i en r emi t s w i th s uch a p p lic a tio n a s u m e q u a llin g $ 1 ,0 0 0 . . . . 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 5 (i ). 4 l eave the U ni t ed St at es . T he bas i s , how ever , foractual l yobt ai ni ng a s t atus adj us t m ent 4
o ste n sib lyre m a in e d g ro u n d e d in a p p ro v a l o f P e tit io n e rs’ a lien e m p lo ym e n t ap p lica tio n to th e D O L . O n A pr i l 19, 2001, onl ya fe w day s aft erthe H ans al l egedl yr e- engage d M r . H ykel t o s ubm i tthei rappl i cat i on forempl oym entcert i fi cat i on t o the D O L , the H ans hi r ed a ne w att o rne y , Jo h n S ee h o u sen . (A R 1 7 5 . ) T h at sam e d ay , M r. S ee h o u sen m o v ed fo r a c o n tin u a n c e o f

th e h e a rin g sc h e d u led M a y3 , 2 0 0 1 ; h e sta ted th a t, at th a t p o in t, he still h a d n o t m e t M rs . H a n . (I d. ) T he hea r i ng w as cont i nued bas ed on thi s r eques tand s ever al tim e s a f ter w a rd in th e w a k e o f

S e p tem b e r 1 1 , 2 0 0 1 . M r. S e e h o u se n u lti m a telym o v e d to w i thdr aw i n A pr i l 2002; i n s uppor t , he s t at ed, “[The H ans ’ ] deci s i on t o r et ai n new couns el t ogetherw i th thei rfai l ur e t o cooper at e w i th couns el m akes i ti m pos s i bl e for couns el t o pr oper l yr epr es ent[the H ans ] i n thes e pr ocee di ng[s ] . ” ( A R 159. ) T he mot i on t o w i thdr aw w as gr ant ed and the H ans s ubs equent l yengage d M i chae l C hoi t o r epr es entT he r ecor d does notm ake c l earon exac t l yw hatdat e M r . C hoi w as r et ai ned. I tdoes 5 refl ectthat, byJune 2 7, 20 02 , M r. C ho i w as l i st ed as t he att orneyof record i n the H ans’ ca se a n d h e w as f

o rw ard ed a N o ti ce to A p p ea r fo r a h ea ri n g b ef o re the Im m igrati o n C o u rt o n A u g u s t 2 2 , 2 0 0 2 . 5 th e m. 5 O n M ay6, 20 02 , the D O L request ed fo l l ow -up i nfo rm at i on regar ding t he H ans’ s econd a l i en empl oym entappl i cat i on fr om M r . H ykel and gave them unt i l J une 20, 2002 to resp o n d . (A R 3 6 . ) T h e re co rd d o es n o t i n d icate w h ethe r eith er M r. S ee h o u sen o r M r. C hoi w as al s o not i fi ed of the D O L ’ s r eques t . N o r es pons e w as l odged byM r . H ykel , and th e s e c o n d a p p lic a tio n w a s d e e m e d a b a n d o n e d . M r . C hoi r epr es ent ed the H ans befor e the I J on A ugus t22, 2002 w her e they c o n c e d e d re m o v a b ili tya n d w e re g ra n ted v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re . T h e H a n s w e re g iv e n u n til D e c e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 2 to d e p a rt th e U n ited S tate s o r, in th e a ltern a tiv e , if th e yf a iled to d e p a rt, th e yw o u ld b e re m o v e d to C a n a d a . (A R 1 3 9 .) T h e IJ w a rn e d th e H a n s th a t sh o u ld th e yf a il t o d e p a rt v o lu n tar ilyb yth e o rd e re d d a te, th e yw o u ld b e in e lig ib le f o r c e rta in f o rm s o f re lief , inc lu d in g a d

ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s, f o r a p e rio d o f

ten y e a rs. (A R 1 3 9 -4 0 ); s ee als o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 c(d ). A m onth befor e the vol unt arydepartur e dea dl i ne, on N ovember20, 2002, the H ans fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen a l l egi ng M r . H ykel had r ender ed i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . T heys ubm i t t ed var i ous document s theycl ai m ed r ender ed them i n compl i anceA n a lien m o v in g to re o p e n b a se d o n a n in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l cla im m u st: 6 ( 1) fi l e an a ffi davi ti n s uppor tof the mot i on thatatt es t s t o the r el evantfac t s and i ncl udes “a s t at ementthats et s for th i n det ai l the agr eementthatw as ent er ed i nt o w i th form er couns el w i th r es pectt o the ac t i ons t o be t aken on a ppeal and w hatcouns el di d ordi d not do i n thi s r egar d”; ( 2) i nform form ercouns el of the al l egat i ons and gi ve form ercouns el an opportuni tyt o r es pond; and ( 3) fi l e a c om pl ai ntagai ns tform ercouns el w i th the a p p ro p ria te d isc ip lin a rya u th o rityo r, if n o c o m p lain t is f iled , p ro v id e a re a so n a b le e x p la n a tio n o f

th e d e c is io n n o t to f

ile . L u v . A sh c ro

ft , 2 5 9 F . 3 d 1 2 7 , 1 3 2 -34 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n o m itt e d ) (h o ld in g th a t th e B IA ’s th re e -p ro n g tes t es tab lish e d in L ozada w as notan abus e of the B I A ’ s di s cr et i on) . I n addi t i on, an al i en msts how thathe w a s p re ju d ic e d b yc o u n s e l’ s in a d e q u a te p e rf o rm a n c e . 6 w i th the B IA ’s “ Lozada re q u ir e m e n ts .” See M at t erof Lozada , 1 9 I. & N . D ec . 6 3 7 (B IA 6 1988) ( es t abl i s hi ng the pr er equi s i t es an al i en musts at i s fyt o r ai s e a c l ai m of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ) . T he I J , fi ndi ng evi dence of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance l acki ng and n o tin g th a t th e H a n s h a d b e e n w a rn e d a b o u t th e c o n se q u e n c e s o f f a ili n g to v o lu n tar ily d ep art i n a ti m elyfa sh ion , d en ied th e m o ti o n . In p arti cu lar, the IJ f o u n d that P eti ti o n ers d i d n o ts a t i s f

y Lozada b e c a u se th e yh a d f a iled to p ro v id e d e tails o f th e ir a g re e m e n t w ith M r. H yk e l an d b e c a u se th e re “ w a s n o e v id e n c e in d ica tin g th a t th e yh a [ d ] in f o rm e d th e ir fo rm er a tt o rne yo f th eir all eg ati o n s. ” (A R 1 0 3 . ) T h e IJ n o ted th at a lett er addr es s ed to the D i s ci pl i naryB oar d of the Supr eme C our tof Penns y l vani a w as s ubm i t t ed t o the courtbut thatther e w as no evi dence befor e i t“thatthe compl ai ntw as fi l ed w i th the the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our torthe appr opr i at e di s ci pl i naryauthor i t i es . ” (Id . ) T he H ans tim e ly ap p e a le d to th e B IA . B e f o re th e B IA , P e tit io n e rs s u b m itt e d a d d iti o n a l ev id e n c e , n o t b e f o re th e IJ, in s uppor tof the mot i on t o r eopen, i ncl udi ng thei rr et ai neragr eementw i th M r . H ykel , the7

D O L ’ s fi r s tr eques tfors uppl ement al i nform at i on, and a l ett erfr om the O ffi ce of the D isci p li n aryB o ard o f th e S u p rem e C o u rto f P en n sy lvan ia t o M r. H an req u esti n g m o re i nform at i on t o as s i s ti n eval uat i ng hi s compl ai ntagai ns tM r . H ykel . T he B I A di s m i s s ed the appe al and made cl earthatthe new evi dence s ubm i t t ed w as notcons i der ed bythe B o a rd s in c e th e H a n s h a d n o t f ile d a m o tio n to re m a n d b u t r a th e r, a m o tio n to re o p e n . T he B I A s t at ed thati tcoul d notcons i dernew evi dence pr es ent ed forthe fi r s tt i m e on appea l as i t s funct i on w as t o r evi ew , and notcr eat e, a r ecor d. B as ed on the evi dence that had bee n befor e the I J , the B I A concl uded thatthe H ans had fa i l ed t o compl yw i th the Lozada re q u ire m e n ts. It, t o o , fo u n d th a t th e H a n s h a d f a iled to se t f

o rth in d e tail th e ir agr eementw i th M r . H ykel “w i th r es pectt o the ac t i ons t o be t aken a nd w hat rep rese n tat ion co u n sel d id o r did n o t m ak e to [ M r. H an ]” (A R 3 . ) In a d d it ion , the B IA f o u n d th a t th e H a n s h a d n o t n o tif ie d M r. H yk e l o f

th e a lle g a tio n o f

in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e . A s s um i ng the l ett ert o the Supr eme C our tof Penns y l vani a w as a compl ai nt , ther e w as no i ndi cat i on a copyw as pr ovi ded t o M r . H ykel , the B I A found. M or eover , the l ett erw as dr aft ed onl ytw o day s pr i ort o fi l i ng the mot i on t o r eopen i n the I m m i gr at i on C our t , s uch th a t M r. H yk e l, e v e n if

h e d id re c e iv e a c o p y , w a s a f f o rd e d n o o p p o rt u n ity to re s p o n d . Fi nal l y , the B I A found thatthe H ans had notbeen pr ej udi ced byM r . H ykel ’ s per form ance

– P e tit io n e rs s u b se q u e n tlyre tain e d th e se rv ice s o f M r. S e e h o u se n a n d M r. C h o i, r es pect i vel y , butthe r ecor d cont ai ned no evi dence thatM r . H an i nform ed ei therof them aboutthe al i en empl oym entcert i fi cat i on pendi ng befor e the D O L orM r . H ykel ’ s i ni t i alT h e B IA n o ted th a t M r. H a n h a d sta ted in h is a f f id a v it su p p o rtin g th e m o tio n to 7 r eopen thathe bel i eved M r . C hoi s houl d have a s s i s t ed hi m w i th the l aborcert i fi cat i on, a n d th a t h e n e e d e d su c h a ss ista n c e , b u t, th e B IA f o u n d , M r. H a n m a d e n o a ttem p t to compl yw i th the Lozada f a c to rs w ith re s p e c t to M r. C h o i.

8 fai l ur e t o pr ovi de the D O L w i th the r eques t ed i nform at i on. 7 I I . St andard of R evi ew W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs for a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Eze a g w u n a v . A sh c ro ft , 325 F. 3d 396, 409 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . W e have o b se rv e d p re v io u slyth a t “m o tio n s to re o p e n im m ig ra tio n p ro c e e d in g s a re ‘tra d iti o n a lly d isfav o red . . . fo r th e sa m e re aso n w e d isfav o r ' p eti ti o n s fo r reh ea ri n g an d m o ti o n s fo r a new tr i al , ’ namel y , the nee d forfi nal i tyi n l i t i gat i on. ” S e v o ia n v . A sh c ro ft , 290 F. 3d 166, 171- 72 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng L u v . A sh c ro ft , 2 5 9 F .3 d 1 2 7 , 1 3 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 )) . W e r evi ew cons t i tut i onal chal l enges , l i ke Pet i t i oner s ’ cl ai m of i neff ect i ve a s s is ta n c e , de novo . S e e D e L e o n -R e y n o so v . A sh c ro

ft , 2 9 3 F .3 d 6 3 3 , 6 3 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T h e B IA ’s f

a c tu a l f in d in g s , h o w e v e r, a re re v ie w e d f o r s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . See A b d u lra h m a n v . A sh c ro ft , 3 3 0 F .3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( “ F in d in g s o f f a c t ... inclu d ing ad v erse cre d ibil ityd eterm ination s, w il l be u p h eld to the e x tent that theyare s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w h o le.” ) (c itatio n o m itt e d ); L in v . A sh c ro ft , 3 7 7 F . 3 d 1 0 1 4 , 1 0 2 4 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( “ We re v iew f in d in g s o f

f a c t re g a rd in g c o u n se l’s p e rf o rm a n c e f

o r su b sta n tial e v id e n c e .”); B ut see U nited S tates v. Q uint ero-Ba rraza , 78 F. 3d 1344, 1347 ( 9th C i r . 1995) ( r equi r i ng de9

novo re v ie w o f

w h e th e r t h e f

a c ts s u f f ic e d to e s ta b lis h p re

ju d ic e ). I I I . D i s cus s i on Pet i t i oner s cl ai m thatM r . H ykel r ender ed i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el by f a ili n g to su b m it ad d iti o n a l in f o rm a tio n to th e D O L o n tw o se p a ra te o c c a sio n s; th e yc laim thattheys uffe r ed cl earpr ej udi ce be caus e M r . H ykel ’ s i nact i on depr i ved them of t he a b ili tyto a v a il th e m se lv e s o f IN A § 2 4 5 (i) a n d p u rsu e a sta tu s a d ju stm e n t w h ile re m a in in g in th e U n ited S tate s. T h e H a n s’ m o tio n to re o p e n w a s f iled o n th is b a sis ; it w a s d e n ie d b yth e IJ , a n d th a t d e n ia l w a s a f f ir m e d b yth e B IA . T he H ans ar gue that“the I J abus ed herdi s cr et i on bydeny i ng the mot i on t o r eopen and the B oar d abus ed i t s di s cr et i on byfai l i ng t o cons i derthe r ecor d as a w hol e w hen aff i r m i ng the I J ’ s deci s i on. ” ( A ppel l ant s ’ O peni ng B r . at15. ) B utw her e, as her e, the BI A i s s u e s i t s o wn d e c i s i o n o n th e me r i t s a n d n o ts i mp l ya s u mm a rya f f i r ma n c e , we re v ie w th e d e c is io n o f

th e B IA , n o t th e IJ . G a o v . A sh c ro ft , 2 9 9 F . 3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 1 (3d C ir . 2002) . “O nl yi f the B I A expr es s l yadopt s ordefe r s t o a fi ndi ng of the I J , w i l l w e r evi ew the dec i s i on of the I J . ” Ka y e m b e v . A sh c ro

ft , 334 F. 3d 231, 234 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t at i on o m itte d ). A s to P e tit io n e rs’ th re sh o ld c o n ten tio n th a t th e B IA a b u se d its d isc re tio n in

“ f a ili n g to c o n sid e r th e re c o rd a s a w h o le,” th e ir a ss e rtio n is w ith o u t m e rit. T h e B IA d id “cons i derthe r ecor d p la c e d b e fo re it , ” Bla n c o v . I

NS , 68 F. 3d 642, 647 ( 2d C i r . 1994) ( emphasi s added) ; i tr efus ed, how ever , t o “enga ge i n fac t fi ndi ng i n the cour s e of de ci di ng10

[an] appea l [] , ” corr ect l ynot i ng thati ti s pr os cr i bed fr om s uch ac t i vi ty : “A partyas s ert i ng thatthe B oar d cannotpr oper l yr es ol ve an a ppeal w i thoutfur therfac t fi ndi ng m us tfi l e a m ot i on forr emand. I f furtherfac t fi ndi ng i s neede d i n a part i cul arcas e, the B oar d m ay r emand t he pr ocee di ng t o the i m m i gr at i on j udge or , as appr opr i at e, t o the Servi ce. ” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (d )(3 )(iv ). P e tit io n e rs d id n o t f ile a m o tio n to re m a n d n o r w a s th e ir or i gi nal m ot i on t o r eopen be for e the I J bas ed upon the di s coveryof new evi dence . E ven if P e tit io n e rs h a d tak e n su c h ste p s, su c h m o tio n s s h a ll n o t b e g ra n ted u n les s it a p p e a rs to the B oar d thatthe evi dence s oughtt o be off er ed “i s m at er i al and w as notavai l abl e and c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n d is c o v e re d o r p re s e n te d a t th e f o rm e r h e a ri n g .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(1 ); s ee al

s o I N S v. A budu , 4 8 5 U .S . 9 4 , 1 0 4 -0 5 (1 9 8 8 ); Ez eagw una , 325 F. 3d at 4 0 8 -1 1 . W ith o n e e x c e p tio n , ea c h p iec e o f a d d iti o n a l ev id e n c e P e tit io n e rs s o u g h t to intr o d u ce b ef

o re the B IA – inclu d ing their retai n er a g ree m en t w ith M r. H yk el, the D O L ’s f ir s t r e q u e s t f

o r s u p p le m e n ta l in f

o rm a tio n , a n d M r. H a n ’s f

ir s t la b o r c e rt if

ic a tio n a p p lic a tio n – c o u ld h a v e b e e n p re s e n te d to th e IJ . O nl ythe l ett erfr om the O ffi ce of the D i s ci pl i naryB oar d of the Supr eme C our tof P e n n sy lv a n ia to M r. H a n re q u e stin g m o re in f o rm a tio n to a ss ist in e v a lu a tin g h is compl ai ntagai ns tM r . H ykel pos t dat es the mot i on t o r emand; buteven s o, the l ett eri s not m at er i al i n thatthe B I A di d notadoptthe I J ’ s fi ndi ng thatno compl ai nthad bee n fi l ed w hi ch, pr es um abl y , the l ett erati s s ue s erved t o r ebut . M or eover , the out come of t he B I A ’ s deci s i on w oul d nothave c hanged ba s ed upon the l ett ers i nce the B oar d found that11

the H an s also h ad fa il ed to m ee t pro n g s o n e a n d tw o u n d er Lozada . ( A R 3. ) A l l thr ee pr ongs of Lozada , a n d a d e m o n s tr a tio n o f p re ju d ic e , m u s t b e f

u lf ille d . W i th r es pectt o Pet i t i oner s ’ cl ai m thatthe B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n aff i r m i ng th e d e n ial o f

th e m o tio n to re o p e n b a se d o n in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e , w e d isa g re e . A c laim of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance , i f pr oper l yes t abl i s hed, can c ons t i tut e pr opergr ounds for re o p e n in g a re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g . Lu , 2 5 9 F . 3 d at 13 2 . A s n o ted a b o v e, th e B IA es t abl i s hed a thr ee- s t ep pr ocedur e fores t abl i s hi ng “egr egi ous ” i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance that w oul d j us t i fyr eopeni ng i n Lozada , 19 I . & N . D ec. at638. T he Lozada proced ure fi rs t e sta b lish e s th a t an in e f

f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e m o tio n sh o u ld b e su p p o rte d b ya n a f f id a v it a ttes tin g to th e re lev a n t f a c ts, in c lu d in g b u t n o t li m ited to a sta tem e n t th a t se ts f o rth in d e ta il th e a g re e m e n t th a t w a s e n te re d in to w ith f o rm e r c o u n s e l. I

d. Second, befor e the al l egat i ons ar e pr es ent ed t o the B I A , form ercouns el m us tbe i nform ed of the al l egat i ons a n d a llo w e d th e o p p o rt u n ity to re s p o n d . Id
. T h ir d , the m o ti o n sh o u ld ref lect w h ethe r a compl ai nthas been f

i l ed w i th the appr opr i at e di s ci pl i naryauthor i t i es r egar di ng the a lle g e d ly in e f

f e c tiv e re p re s e n ta tio n , a n d if n o t, th e re a s o n th e re f

o r. Id
. Fi nal l y , an al i en m u s t s h o w th a t h e w a s p re ju d ic e d b yc o u n s e l’ s in a d e q u a te p e rf o rm a n c e . I

d. at640. T he B I A concl uded thatthe H ans had fa i l ed t o compl yw i th the fi r s tand s econd pr ongs of Lozada and, i n anyevent , had fa i l ed t o demonstr at e pr ej udi ce. Fi r s t , i tfound that , though M r . H an, w hom the B I A r efe rr ed t o as the l ead r es pondent , s ubm i t t ed an a f f id a v it, th e a f

f id a v it fa iled to se t f

o rth in d e tail th e ir a g re e m e n t w ith M r. H yk e l “w ith12

re sp e c t to th e a c tio n s to b e tak e n a n d w h a t re p re se n tatio n c o u n se l d id o r d id n o t m a k e to [M r. H an ]” (A R 3 . ) T h e B IA o b serv ed that the a ff idav itd id n o t cl ea rl yestab li sh w h o M r. H yk e l r e p re s e n te d – th e le a d re s p o n d e n t M r. H a n o r h is e n tir e f a m ily. (I d. ) M o reo v er, the af fi davi tdi d notpr ovi de det ai l s r egar di ng ei therM r . H an’ s orhi s pr os pect i ve e m p lo y e r’ s le v e l o r w illin g n e s s to c o o p e ra te o n th e la b o r c e rt if ic a tio n a p p lic a tio n . (I

d. ) M r . H an cl ai m s thathi s aff i davi tw as s uffi ci entt o m eetthe fi r s tr equi r ementof Lozada and ci t es L o v . A sh c ro ft , 341 F. 3d 934 ( 9th C i r . 2003) , w her e the C our tfound that pet i t i oner s w ho s ubm i t t ed af fi davi t s expl ai ni ng couns el ’ s negl i gentr ol e i n a mi s s ed hear i ng dat e had c om pl i ed w i th L o za da ’s fi r s tpr ong. I n Lo , h o w e v e r, m u lti p le a f f id a v its w er e s ubm i t t ed, not abl y , one byform ercouns el hi m s el f conc edi ng thathi s offi ce ha d i nadvert ent l ym ade a m i s t ake. A l s o i n thatcas e, the pet i t i oner ’ s aff i davi tl eftno gaps or ques t i ons as t o w hatm or e theycoul d have done t o appea ras s chedul ed, w her eas her e, M r . H an’ s aff

i davi tdoes notaddr es s the foc al poi ntof hi s compl ai nt– the s uppl ement al m at er i al s – exce ptt o s ayM r . H ykel neverpr ovi ded them t o the D O L . W e do notknow w h ethe r M r. H yk el ask ed fo r th e m aterial s fro m M r. H an o r th e e m p loy er, or w h ethe r M r. H an orthe empl oy erm ade a m ove t o pr ovi de them t o M r . H ykel . A nd, i n t erm s of the D O L ’ s M ay6, 2002 r eques tforfol l ow - up i nform at i on r egar di ng the H ans ’ s econd a l i en empl oym entappl i cat i on, i ti s s i gni fi cantthatM r . H an had r et ai ned new , pr i vat e couns el b ythat p o int. T h e re co rd d o es n o t i n d icate w h ethe r he inf o rm ed eith er M r. S ee h o u sen o r, la te r, M r. C h o i o f

h is p e n d in g a p p lic a tio n o r t h e D O L ’s re q u e s t.13

R egar di ng L o za da ’s s econd pr ong, the B I A found no evi dence thatM r . H an had not i fi ed M r . H ykel of the al l egat i ons bei ng l evi ed aga i ns thi m . T he r ecor d furni s hed alon g w ith the m o ti o n to reo p en b ef o re the IJ i n clud ed n o let ter directl yad d resse d to M r. H ykel and the s t at e barcompl ai nts i m i l ar l ydi d notcopyM r . H ykel . M or eover , the l ett er w a s d ra f ted o n lytw o d a y s p rio r to f ili n g th e m o tio n to re o p e n in th e Im m ig ra tio n C o u rt, su c h th a t M r. H yk e l, ev e n if h e d id re c e iv e a c o p y , w a s a f f o rd e d n o o p p o rtu n ityto re s p o n d . P e t i t i o n e r s r e s p o n d th a tth e yd i d g i v e M r . Hyk e l p r o p e rn o t i c e b ys e n d i n g h i m a cop yof M r. H an’s affi dav i tbyregul ar and cert i fi ed m ai l t o h i s l astkn ow n b usi ness a d d r e s s . P e t i t i o n e r s c l a i m th i s g o o d f a i th e f f o r tm e e t s th e b a rs e tb y Lozada un der these c irc u m sta n c e s, w h e re c o u n se l h a d b e e n su sp e n d e d f ro m th e p ra c tice o f

law a n d a lleg e d ly had no form al bus i nes s addr es s . A l t ernat i vel y , i ts eems, the H ans ar gue thatM r . H ykel al r eadyknew hi s pr ofes s i onal cr edi bi l i tyw as bei ng chal l enged s i nce he had bee n su sp en d ed . B u t, d esp it e P eti ti o n ers’ claim that theytr ied to n o ti fyM r. H yk el, the re co rd cont ai ns abs ol ut el yno evi dence of thi s purpor t ed ef for t . A nd, even i f M r . H an had copi ed M r . H ykel on the s t at e barcompl ai nt , the B I A corr ect l ynot ed thattw o day s i s not a n a d e q u a te o p p o rt u n ity to re s p o n d to th e a lle g a tio n s . F inally , the B IA fo u n d that the H an s h ad n o t bee n p rejud iced b yM r. H yk el’s p erf o rm an ce – P eti ti o n ers su b seq u en tl yretaine d the s erv ices o f M r. S ee h o u sen an d M r. C hoi , r es pect i vel y , butthe r ecor d cont ai ned no evi dence thatM r . H an i nform ed ei therofIt is f

o r th e sa m e re a so n th a t th e H a n s h a v e n o t b e e n “ p re v e n ted f ro m re a so n a b ly 8 pr es ent i ng” thei rcas e i n vi ol at i on of thei rFi fth A m endmentdue pr oces s r i ghtt o be re p re s e n te d b yc o u n s e l d u ri n g im m ig ra tio n p ro c e e d in g s . S e e P o n c e -L e iva v . A sh c ro ft , 3 3 1 F .3 d 3 6 9 , 3 7 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). B e c a u se e ith e r o f th e ir su b se q u e n t atto rn e y s c o u ld h a v e p u rsu e d th e H a n s’ c laim s, M r. H yk e l’s f a ilu re s w e re n o t th e d e ter m in a tiv e f a c to r in the H ans ’ i nabi l i tyt o s eek a dj us t m entof s t atus . A ccor di ngl y , anydue pr oces s cl ai m the H a n s m a yp re se n t h a s n o m e rit. 14 them ab o u t th e a li en em p loym en t certi fica ti o n p en d ing b ef o re the D O L o r M r. H yk el’s i ni t i al fai l ur e t o pr ovi de the D O L w i th the r eques t ed i nform at i on. W hen M r . H an r et ai ned new pr i vat e couns el , onl yday s aft erM r . H ykel fi l ed the s econd e m pl oym entcert i fi cat i on a p p lica tio n , h e c o u ld h a v e in f o rm e d c o u n se l o f

th e p e n d in g a p p lica tio n o r, at th a t p o in t, f iled a th ird a p p lica tio n still i n tim e to m e e t th e A p ril 3 0 , 2 0 0 1 d e a d lin e . T h e re c o rd is 8 d e v o id o f

e v id e n c e th a t a n ys u c h s te p s w e re ta k e n . T h e B IA ’s fa ctua l fi n d ing s are su p p o rt ed b ysu b stan ti al ev iden ce an d the B o ard di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n aff i r m i ng the deni al of the mot i on t o r eopen. Foral l of the r e a s o n s s t a t e d a b o v e , we wi l l DE NY th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.