Opinion ID: 2960573
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ~onstantine v. Gonzalez

Text: On October 24, 2006, DeMell submitted, on behalfof his client Ricardo Constantine, a petition for review of a decision of the Board ofImmigration Appeals (BIN') dated July 19, 2006. On November 29, 2006 the government moved to dismiss on two grounds: (I) the Court lacked jurisdiction as an earlier appeal ofthe matter had been dismissed and transferred back to the District Court where the matter was still pending, and (2) the petition for review was untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the BIA order. On January 26, 2007, the Constantine docket indicates a notice to counsel that the motion was returnable on February 16, 2007. No opposition papers were filed. On February 20, 2007 the Court dismissed the appeal for lack ofjurisdiction. I DeMell acknowledges that Constantine was prejudiced by the failure to file opposition papers, Hearing Tr. 20: 10-15, but contends that the failure to file an opposition was not his fault because Constantine had retained new cOWlSel, Pankaj Malik, and DeMelI had forwarded the file to Malik on January 10,2007. It is DeMeU's position that it was the responsibility of new counsel to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss. According to Malik, on or about December 29, 2006 Constantine sought to have Malik represent him in connection with the appeal. On or about January 8, 2008, Malik sent a letter to DeMell confirming the change of counsel and asking DeMell to send her Constantine's file. Initially, Malik did not recall having received any documents from DeMell, although she later confirmed that on or about January 11, 2007, she received documents from DeMel!. Records I The Court's opinion granting the motion appears to have misperceived the motion to be directed to a petition for habeas relief when in fact it was directed to a petition for review. The Court's opinion did not discuss the reason set fonh in the petition for review to explain the tiling more than 30 days after the administrative decision, but rather, viewing it as a habeas application. relied on the Court's lack ofjurisdiction in that circumstance. In this regard, it did not grant dismissal for lack ofjuriSdiction on the ground urged by the government. 6 rrom Federal Express confinn that Malik's finn signed for such a package from DeMell's finn on January] 1, 2007. However, Malik claimed that the documents she received did not constitute the entire file and that there was nothing in the documents that reflected the existence of the motion to dismiss or that it was calendared for February 16,2007. DeMeU disputed this and produced a copy of the file purportedly sent to Malik that included the government's motion to dismiss. The Committee credits his testimony on the ground that he would have no reason not to produce the entire file to Malik and that there is a lack of clarity in Malik's account of what she received. Malik filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Constantine on February 5, 2007, but no motion for substitution of counsel was filed until March 7,2007. Malik claimed that DeMell was responsible for filing a motion to substitute counsel; DeMell claimed that it was Malik's responsibility. In view of the reasons the Committee believes justify a sanction, the Committee does not decide that issue and notes that the matter appears not to be clearly addressed in the federal or local rules. In a motion paper dated February 15,2007, Malik moved to re-caJendar the return date of the motion to dismiss. but due to the absence of a motion for substitution of counsel, the motion to re-calendar was not docketed until March 7. 2007 upon filing of the motion for substitution of counsel. On March 19, 2007 the motion for substitution of counsel was granted, and on March 27. 2007 the motion to re-calendar was denied.