Opinion ID: 1442616
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Martinez Matters

Text: Elias Martinez retained petitioner in two unrelated matters. In September 1980, Martinez requested petitioner file a fifth preference visa application with the INS. [1] According to Martinez, when he returned later that same month to check the status of the application, petitioner told him everything was fine. Petitioner, however, did not actually file the application until May 5, 1981, approximately seven months later. Martinez engaged petitioner a second time after Martinez's wife and three children arrived from Nicaragua and were threatened with deportation by the INS. Initially petitioner told the Martinezes they had no available defense. After Mr. Martinez confronted petitioner with the opinion of another attorney who believed Mrs. Martinez could successfully challenge the deportation order, petitioner agreed to accept the case. On May 12, 1981, petitioner advised the Martinezes that he would file an application for political asylum on their behalf; Mr. Martinez filled out the application that same day in petitioner's office. Petitioner never filed the application. An exclusion hearing was set for August 24, 1981. Approximately five minutes before this hearing, petitioner saw Walter Pineda leaving the building in which the hearing was to take place. Pineda worked in petitioner's office as an independent contractor, having been admitted to the bar less than four months previously. Petitioner introduced Pineda to the Martinezes. According to Pineda, petitioner then asked him to do petitioner a favor and represent the Martinezes at the hearing. Pineda protested. He reminded petitioner that he had never conducted an exclusion hearing, and was not familiar with the case file. Explaining that the hearing was only a summary master calendar proceeding, petitioner assured Pineda he need only remember the acronym ASS: request  A sylum, S ixty days' continuance, and assignment of a S panish interpreter. Pineda represented the Martinezes as told. The summary master calendar, however, turned out to be a complete three-hour hearing on the merits. At the end of the hearing the immigration judge granted the Martinezes 30 days to file an application for political asylum and criticized counsel for not having done so earlier. Pineda returned to the office, delivered the Martinez file to petitioner and advised him of the proceeding and the need to file an application for asylum within 30 days. Again petitioner did not file the application. In January 1982, the immigration judge found Mrs. Martinez had waived her right to asylum and ordered her and her children deported. Petitioner appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, but the board upheld the immigration judge's decision, noting that no application for asylum had been made. Without explaining that he had neglected to file the asylum application, petitioner simply informed the Martinezes that the petition had been denied. (Indeed, Mr. Martinez testified he received this information only after he initiated contact with petitioner.) Assuring the Martinezes that everything was nevertheless in working order, petitioner promised to file a motion to reopen the case. However, everything was not in working order. On October 5, 1983, Mrs. Martinez received a deportation notice, ordering her to report to the Office of the Immigration Judge on October 20, 1983. Petitioner received a copy of the order, but made no effort to contact the Martinezes. When Mr. Martinez went to petitioner's office, petitioner stated he would assist in halting the deportation for an additional $4,000. Mr. Martinez then wrote a check for $1,000, bringing the total legal fees paid to $1,850. Petitioner thereafter agreed to appear at the immigration judge's office on the date scheduled for Mrs. Martinez's deportation to help explain the circumstances, but he failed to appear. Mrs. Martinez was forced into hiding to avoid deportation. Later the Martinezes hired Attorney (now Immigration Judge) Dana Marks Keener, who successfully petitioned to reopen the case.