Opinion ID: 619061
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: October 1, 2007 Motion to Reopen

Text: Zheng retained new counsel and, on October 1, 2007, moved to reopen his removal proceedings based on attorney Huang’s alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. In a supporting affidavit, Zheng alleged that “in the weeks and days approaching the April 5th, 2007 hearing in Atlanta I asked Attorney Huang what 6 we should be doing to prepare for the hearing, and that he repeatedly told me not to worry about the hearing because he expected that venue in the matter would be changed[.]” According to Zheng’s affidavit, attorney Huang “continued to make such assurances right up until a day or two before the hearing on April 5th, 2007.” Then, on April 4, “while at Attorney Huang’s office [Zheng] spoke with Attorney Huang over the phone and that together with [Huang’s] staff we found out that in fact the venue in the matter had not been changed.” At that point, Huang’s staff informed Zheng that Huang needed $5,000 to appear at the April 5 hearing and that Zheng “shouldn’t worry about his [attorney] appearing or not appearing.” “[B]y the end of the meeting [Zheng] was quite diswrought [sic], and fearful that [his] case was in trouble.” When Zheng complained at the exorbitant fee, Huang’s staff advised Zheng “that it didn’t matter if Attorney Huang went to the hearing or not.” Negotiations “broke off,” and Zheng left Huang’s office “feeling . . . deceived and victimized.” Zheng’s October 1 motion to reopen admitted that Zheng did not go to the April 5 hearing in Atlanta “because he was without guidance from his attorney as to how to proceed in his immigration action, and because he was fearful.” And Zheng does not dispute that he knew that he still needed to attend the April 5 hearing. The IJ denied Zheng’s motion to reopen. The BIA remanded for the IJ to 7 make more particularized findings. The IJ entered a second order denying Zheng’s motion to reopen. Subsequently, the BIA dismissed Zheng’s appeal. The BIA found that Zheng had notice of the removal hearing and does not challenge that proper notice was given of the April 5 hearing. The BIA also found that Zheng was informed by his attorney that venue had not changed and that Zheng needed to appear at the hearing. The BIA further found that Zheng’s former attorney had not prevented Zheng from attending the hearing and had correctly advised Zheng that he should appear at the hearing. The BIA concluded Zheng had not shown that his former attorney prejudiced him. Zheng timely petitioned for review of the denial of his motion to reopen.