Opinion ID: 2329302
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Representation of Adela Rivas and Regulo Flores-Garcia

Text: In November 2002, Respondent met with Adela Rivas (Rivas), a U.S. citizen, and Flores-Garcia, a Mexican national. At the time, Respondent had been practicing immigration law in northern Colorado for five years. [33] Rivas and Flores-Garcia, who were romantically involved, sought Respondent's advice on how Flores-Garcia could obtain legal status in the United States. At the time, Rivas was married to another Colorado resident, but she was considering filing for divorce. Flores-Garcia was in a common-law marriage with a woman living in Mexico. [34] According to Respondent, Flores-Garcia mentioned during their initial meeting that he had first entered the United States via bus in 1999. Flores-Garcia told Respondent that an immigration officer in Tijuana, Mexico had inspected him and allowed him to proceed into California, but he received no written authorization to cross the border. At the disciplinary hearing, Respondent testified that Flores-Garcia was somewhat evasive regarding the facts surrounding his 1999 entry, but Respondent believed there were three possible grounds for arguing Flores-Garcia's entry had been lawful: (1) an officer had inspected him; (2) he provided information suggesting he might be eligible for a waiver under a family unification provision for special agricultural workers; [35] and (3) he had obtained from the Mexican consulate in Denver an identification card known as a matricula card, and Mexican nationals in 1999 arguably could cross the border without a visa or passport if they intended to obtain a matricula card. [36] Contrary to Respondent's testimony, Rivas claims Respondent never discussed with them the possibility of arguing Flores-Garcia's 1999 entry had been lawful. At their initial meeting, Respondent recommended filing a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to determine if INS had any records of Flores-Garcia's entry into the United States that would affect his admissibility, such as an order of removal. Rivas and Flores-Garcia approved this course of action and paid Respondent $500.00 to file the FOIA request. [37] Respondent received a favorable response on December 3, 2003, indicating INS had no records concerning Flores-Garcia's entry into the United States. [38] In late 2002 and early 2003, while awaiting the FOIA response, Respondent met with Rivas and Flores-Garcia a number of times. According to Respondent, he advised the couple that Flores-Garcia was presumptively subject to the waivable ten-year bar because he had stayed in the United States for over a year following his 1999 entry, but he would be eligible for a hardship waiver in the future if he and Rivas were engaged or married. The process Respondent outlined was for Flores-Garcia to file a visa petition, attend a visa interview at the U.S. consulate in Juarez, Mexico, and apply for an I-601 hardship waiver. Rivas's recollection of this advice is largely consonant with Respondent's testimony. In early 2003, Flores-Garcia expressed a desire to visit his ailing mother in Mexico. Respondent and Evelyn McCormick (Respondent's wife and office manager) both testified that Respondent advised Flores-Garcia not to return to Mexico. Respondent avers he also told Flores-Garcia that, should he travel to Mexico, he could not return to the United States until Rivas's divorce was finalized and he obtained a visa. Respondent testified that he warned Flores-Garcia not to re-enter the United States illegally, because doing so could trigger the non-waivable ten-year bar. In spite of Respondent's advice, Flores-Garcia elected to return to Mexico. In December 2003, Rivas's divorce was finalized. [39] Early the next year, she told Respondent she wanted to travel to Mexico to marry Flores-Garcia. [40] Respondent explained that, if she did so, the couple would need to file an I-130, apply for a K-3 visa, and request a hardship waiver. [41] Rivas married Flores-Garcia in Mexico in April 2004. She then returned to Colorado. Rivas entered into a fee agreement with Respondent on May 18, 2004, and paid him $1,500.00 to prepare and file a visa application and related forms. [42] According to Respondent, he learned only in late May 2004, after signing the fee agreement, that Flores-Garcia had illegally reentered the United States in September 2003 and again returned to Mexico in March 2004. Respondent asserts he discovered Flores-Garcia's 2003 re-entry when a notaria [43] sent him a biographic information sheetone component of the I-130 applicationwhich Rivas and Flores-Garcia had filled out and which listed Flores-Garcia's 1999 and 2003 entries into the United States. [44] Respondent suspects the notaria previously gave the couple incorrect advice about Flores-Garcia's eligibility for legal status and whether it was wise for him to return to Mexico. [45] Rivas presented a different story regarding the events described above. She initially testified that neither she nor Flores-Garcia told Respondent of Flores-Garcia's plan to return to Mexico, implying that Respondent never warned Flores-Garcia not to re-enter the United States illegally. However, Rivas subsequently conceded that Respondent did tell Flores-Garcia he should only return with legal documentation. Rivas also claimed that she informed Respondent soon after September 2003 of Flores-Garcia's illegal re-entry and that she filled out the biographic information sheet listing Flores-Garcia's 1999 and 2003 entries while in Respondent's office. According to Rivas, Respondent then advised her that he no longer believed filing for a fiancé visa was a viable strategy and she should instead file an I-130. Rivas also claims that Respondent told her it was preferable for Flores-Garcia to return to Mexico pending processing of his applications and that the couple decided to marry in Mexico rather than the United States on the basis of this advice. Contrary to Rivas's testimony, Respondent testified that his assessment of Flores-Garcia's case shifted dramatically in May 2004, when he says he learned of the 2003 re-entry. Although he deemed this revelation to be quite damaging, he claims Rivas begged him to pursue any possible means of securing legal status for Flores-Garcia, even if success was unlikely. [46] Respondent researched the available options, including by consulting with two other immigration lawyers. Respondent testified that he settled on a strategy with two elements. First, he developed a legal theory, which we refer to as the I-601 strategy: that the consulate in Juarez was legally obligated to forward Flores-Garcia's I-601 hardship waiver application to USCIS for adjudication, even though Flores-Garcia's 1999 and 2003 entries were presumptively illegal and the consulate typically would refuse to accept an I-601 for an alien subject to the nonwaivable ten-year bar. Second, if Flores-Garcia obtained an interview for an immigrant visa, he could present evidence that his 1999 entry had been legal; if that argument prevailed, he would not be subject to either of the ten-year bars, since he had remained only briefly in the United States after his 2003 reentry. [47] Respondent testified that he thoroughly discussed his legal strategies with Rivas in advance, he prepared her for the issues to be addressed at the consular interview, and she understood the odds were not in their favor. Respondent also claims he discussed these issues with Flores-Garcia after he returned to Mexico. At the disciplinary hearing, Rivas equivocated regarding her expectations for the interview, though she admitted Respondent told her there was no guarantee of success. Respondent filed an I-130 in June 2004 and an I-129F the following month. [48] In August 2004, Respondent submitted to the U.S. embassy in Mexico City an expedited request for waiver of inadmissibility along with an I-601, arguing that Rivas was suffering emotional trauma due to her separation from Flores-Garcia and incurring great expense by visiting him in Mexico. [49] Rivas's I-129F petition was approved in February 2005, [50] and the couple attended a May 2005 consular interview in Juarez regarding the K-3 visa application. [51] After the interview, the officer determined that Flores-Garcia was ineligible for the visa and could not re-apply for ten years. [52] The officer did not accept or forward to USCIS Flores-Garcia's I-601 hardship waiver application. After the consular interview, Respondent claims he explained the range of appellate options to Rivas. He testified that Rivas wanted to attend an immigrant visa interview scheduled for May 2006 rather than immediately filing an appeal. Rivas, meanwhile, flatly disputes that Respondent ever discussed an appeal with her. To preserve their appeal rights, Respondent wrote to the consulate in late May 2005, maintaining that Flores-Garcia was entitled to a hardship waiver and that the consular officer had been legally obligated to accept Flores-Garcia's proffered I-601. [53] Respondent received a response from the consulate dated August 29, 2005, stating that Flores-Garcia was subject to the nonwaivable ten-year bar. [54] Respondent next wrote to Senator Kenneth Salazar in October 2005, arguing that Flores-Garcia should be eligible for a waiver. [55] The senator's office replied later that month, saying the senator had written to the consulate. [56] A consular officer responded to the senator's inquiry on November 1, 2005, reasserting that Flores-Garcia was ineligible for a visa. [57] The People allege that Respondent did not share with Rivas copies of the correspondence from the consulate and the senator's office. Respondent, however, avers he mailed a copy of the letter he had received from the senator's office to the address Rivas had given him, but it was returned as undeliverable because she no longer lived there. Respondent also testified that he sent Rivas a copy of the letter the consulate had mailed to the senator. Rivas and Flores-Garcia ultimately elected not to attend the May 2006 interview for the I-130 petition, and Flores-Garcia never obtained approval of the I-130. [58] Also in 2006, Rivas told Respondent that Flores-Garcia had illegally re-entered the United States a third time and had been arrested for driving under the influence. [59] Because it had become a matter of public record that Flores-Garcia had unlawfully re-entered the United States, Respondent told Rivas he could do nothing more for the couple. As Respondent explained at the disciplinary hearing, in light of Flores-Garcia's criminal record, it was inconceivable that a consular officer would exercise discretion in Flores-Garcia's favor. Rivas filed a grievance against Respondent in 2009. She claims she decided to do so based on advice she received from a volunteer lawyer at a Denver church in May 2009. The volunteer lawyer, who reviewed several documents in Rivas's possession, apparently told her that Flores-Garcia's 1999 and 2003 entries into the United States made him ineligible for legal status and that any contrary advice the couple might have previously received would have been incorrect. Rivas and Flores-Garcia have divorced, though they continue to live together. At present, Flores-Garcia is awaiting a removal hearing scheduled for February 2012. The Hearing Board is unaware whether Flores-Garcia intends to raise a defense that Respondent provided ineffective assistance of counsel. [60]