Opinion ID: 3050952
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: procedural requirements for an

Text: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM The BIA abused its discretion when it dismissed Morales’s ineffective assistance claim for failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Lozada. [1] Under Lozada, the BIA generally requires a petitioner claiming ineffective assistance of counsel to: (1) submit an affidavit demonstrating and explaining her agreement with prior counsel regarding legal representation; (2) inform prior counsel of the accusations and allow counsel an opportunity to respond; and (3) indicate whether a complaint has been filed with the appropriate disciplinary authorities. Id. at 639. [2] In practice, we have been flexible in our application of the Lozada requirements. The Lozada factors are not rigidly MORALES APOLINAR v. MUKASEY 1213 applied, especially where their purpose is fully served by other means. See, e.g., Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 525-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that the Lozada requirements “are not sacrosanct”); see also Ray v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 582, 588 (9th Cir. 2006) (observing that we have “not hesitated to address ineffective assistance of counsel claims, even when an alien fails to comply strictly with Lozada”). Indeed, “we seldom reject ineffective assistance of counsel claims solely on the basis of Lozada deficiencies.” Fong Yang Lo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 934, 937 n.4 (9th Cir. 2003). We conclude that Morales substantially complied with the Lozada requirements. The attorney-client arrangement between Morales and Valinoti is evident from Valinoti’s onthe-record appearances on her behalf.3 Additionally, Morales submitted a sworn declaration explaining the conduct that substantiated her ineffective assistance claim. The declaration stated that: (1) Valinoti relied on Estela Rodriguez, a nonattorney immigration consultant, or notario, to perform the legal work; (2) Valinoti failed to submit available documents that would have supported her showing of continuous physical presence; (3) Valinoti failed to call witnesses who were able and willing to testify to her continuous physical presence; and (4) Valinoti failed to establish Morales’s mother as a qualifying relative for hardship analysis purposes. Although Morales did not report Valinoti’s misconduct to a disciplinary authority or confront Valinoti directly, as required under Lozada, we conclude that such action would have been futile under the circumstances. Just twelve days after Morales’s hearing before the IJ, Valinoti was suspended from the practice of law in the state 3 Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.17(a), an attorney must execute, file, and serve a Notice of Entry of Appearance on Form EOIR-28 before representing a client in any proceeding before an IJ. An attorney may withdraw from representation or effectuate substitutions of attorney only upon motion to the IJ. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.17(b). 1214 MORALES APOLINAR v. MUKASEY of California for five years. In a 100-page decision, the California State Bar Court found that Valoniti had committed eighteen counts of misconduct in nine cases and five additional counts of uncharged but proven misconduct. In re Valinoti, No. 96-O-08095, 2002 WL 31907316 (Cal. Bar Ct. Dec. 31, 2002).4 Valinoti subsequently resigned from the State Bar of California. After the State Bar Court issued its decision, the Executive Office for Immigration Review petitioned for Valinoti’s immediate suspension from practice before the BIA and Immigration Courts. The IJs were aware of Valinoti’s underhanded practices for quite some time. Valinoti, 2002 WL 31907316, at  (explaining that Valinoti was “well-known” among IJs for repeatedly being late for hearings, or missing them altogether).5 The Department of Homeland Security 4 During the disciplinary hearings, the State Bar Court determined that Valinoti handled more than 2,720 immigration cases during a two-year period in a manner that was “reckless and involved gross carelessness,” id. at , while earning more than $250,000 annually, id. at . The court found that Valinoti failed to competently represent clients, accepted more cases than he could handle, routinely “placed his interests above those of his clients” by permitting non-lawyers to perform legal work, and “consistently demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of his duty of fidelity to his clients.” Id. at  (quoting hearing judge’s findings of fact). The court also censured Valinoti for maintaining an excessive caseload with inadequate support staff, id. at -, moving his offices repeatedly without notifying his clients, id. at -, and failing to keep adequate records, id. at -. 5 In November 1996, an exasperated IJ admonished an attorney from Valinoti’s law office: “Mr. Valinoti knows he’s overbooked. Most attorneys have maybe one or two hearings set. He has anywhere from six to ten set each morning or afternoon, and he’s all over this courthouse. The result is his clients are not represented in court.” Id. The IJ went on to characterize the pleading in the case before him as “one of the shoddiest” that he “had seen in a long time” and noted that “every case [Valinoti] has is a problem.” Id. at . In that case, Valinoti’s client, a sixty-eight yearold widow, was removed in absentia to Syria after her requests for relief were deemed abandoned due to Valinoti’s ineffective assistance. Id. at MORALES APOLINAR v. MUKASEY 1215 likewise petitioned for Valinoti’s suspension from practice before that agency. Valinoti was required to file a timely answer to these allegations of misconduct, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.105(c)(1), but he failed to do so. In re Valinoti, No. D2000-034, at 1 (BIA Oct. 8, 2003), available at http:// www.usdoj.gov/eoir/profcond/FinalOrders/ValinottiJamesRFnlOrd.pdf. His failure to respond constituted an admission of the allegations, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.105(d)(1), and Valinoti was consequently suspended from practicing before the BIA, the Immigration Courts, and the Department of Homeland Security. See In re Valinoti, No. D2000-34, at 2. [3] We conclude that, in cases where a petitioner’s attorney has been suspended after failing to respond to prior charges of ineffective assistance, it would be futile for the petitioner to inform counsel of the accusations or file a complaint, and Morales’s failure to do so therefore does not bar her ineffective assistance of counsel claim. This decision comports with the policy goals of Lozada, which are “to provide a framework within which to assess the bona fides of the substantial number of ineffective assistance claims asserted, to discourage baseless allegations and meritless claims, and to hold attorneys to appropriate standards of performance.” Fong Lang Yo, 341 F.3d at 937. Sadly, “the adjudication of [immigration] cases at the administrative level has fallen below the minimum standards of legal justice.” See -. That same month, another IJ complained that Valinoti’s conduct was “taxing the system,” id. at , before ordering his client removed in absentia to Mexico because of Valinoti’s failure to abide by court-ordered deadlines, id. at . Again, in July 1997, while denying a request for a continuance, another IJ recognized that Valinoti had shown “complete irresponsibility in terms of what has been going on. This is not the first time that this has happened. This has happened before, within the last month, with Mr. Valinoti. I do not know what his problem is.” Id. at . Valinoti’s associate agreed with the IJ that Valinoti’s conduct was “shameful.” Id. 1216 MORALES APOLINAR v. MUKASEY Benslimane v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 828, 830 (7th Cir. 2005) (Posner, J.). All too often, vulnerable immigrants are preyed upon by unlicensed notarios and unscrupulous appearance attorneys who extract heavy fees in exchange for false promises and shoddy, ineffective representation. Despite widespread awareness of these abhorrent practices,6 the lamentable exploitation of the immigrant population continues, and the BIA’s insistence upon strict compliance with Lozada in cases where such compliance would clearly be futile only worsens the plight of the immigrant. [4] Since it would have been futile for Morales to confront Valinoti and file a complaint, the BIA abused its discretion in dismissing Morales’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to strictly comply with Lozada.