Opinion ID: 3027744
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was Fadiga required to file a complaint with

Text: disciplinary authorities? There is no dispute that Fadiga complied with the first two Lozada requirements—filing an explanatory affidavit and providing former counsel with an opportunity to respond. Nor is it disputed that Fadiga did not file a complaint with a bar grievance committee or other “appropriate disciplinary authorities,” Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. at 639, in regard to Daniel Pell’s allegedly deficient performance. Accordingly, the government argues that if the BIA had not denied Fadiga’s motion on the prejudice issue, it would have had to do so “because of his failure to comply with Lozada”—that is, because “Fadiga neither filed a disciplinary complaint nor explained his failure to do so.” Respt.’s Br. 19 n.10. In its brief discussion of Lozada’s complaint requirement, the Board’s decision and order in this case noted that “ordinarily” and “[i]n most cases” a complaint would be required. However, the decision and order then included “cf.” citations to page 134 of our opinion in Lu, supra, and to the Pell affidavit. In Lu, we noted the “dangers . . . in applying a strict, formulaic interpretation of Lozada” and, on the page cited by the BIA, we stressed that the filing of a complaint “is not an absolute requirement” and that “the failure to file a complaint is not fatal if a petitioner provides a reasonable explanation.” Lu, 259 F.3d at 133, 134 (emphasis in original).20 In its citation to the Pell affidavit, the Board noted Pell’s “accept[ance of] responsibility for the aforementioned errors.” E.R. at 4.21 Although the Board then went on to deny the motion on finding no prejudice, without explicitly ruling on the 20 See also Zheng 422 F.3d at 106 (“‘[O]nly in rare circumstances have courts refused to reopen immigration proceedings solely because a petitioner failed to file a bar complaint.’” (quoting Lu, 259 F.3d at 133, 134 (emphasis in original))); Ponce-Leiva v. Ashcroft, 311 F.3d 369, 374 (3d Cir. 2003); Chmakov v. Blackman, 266 F.3d 210, 213 n.3 (3d Cir. 2001). 21 Pell also acknowledged the ineffectiveness in the motion to reopen filed with the IJ on May 26, 2004. 23 Lozada requirements, a logical interpretation of the Board’s citations—coming directly after its statement that the complaint requirement “ordinarily” and “in most cases” would apply—is that the Board found the Pell affidavit to be a “reasonable explanation,” Lu, 259 F.3d at 134, for the failure to file a complaint. Whether or not the Board intended to so rule, such a ruling would seem the proper one. In explaining that the Lozada requirements “need not be rigidly enforced where their purpose is fully served by other means,” 259 F.3d at 134 (internal quotation marks omitted), Lu detailed several interests served by “the third prong of the Lozada test, the so called ‘bar complaint’ requirement.” Id. at 132–33; see also In re Rivera-Claros, 21 I. & N. Dec. 599, 603–605, 607 (BIA 1996) (en banc) (discussing “multiple purposes behind . . . Lozada rule”). These interests include providing a “means of identifying and correcting possible misconduct” in the immigration bar, Rivera-Claros, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 604, “deter[ing] meritless claims of ineffective assistance of counsel [and] highlight[ing] the standards which should be expected of attorneys who represent aliens in immigration proceedings,” id., “increas[ing the Board’s] confidence in the validity of the particular claim[,] . . . . reduc[ing] the likelihood that an evidentiary hearing will be needed[,] . . . . serv[ing the Board’s] long-term interests in policing the immigration bar[,] . . . . [a]nd . . . protect[ing] against possible collusion between counsel and the alien client.” Id. at 605. All of these interests—save the last—are served without a complaint where, as here, prior counsel has fully and openly owned up to his error and provided a detailed affidavit attesting to the problems in the representation. As to the “collusion” rationale, it seems unlikely that a lawyer would go so far as to commit perjury (i.e., intentionally filing a false affidavit) in furtherance of such collusion. Therefore, we find that the requirement of a complaint was excused in this case where counsel acknowledged the ineffectiveness and made every effort to remedy the situation. Lozada provides no bar to Fadiga’s claim.