Opinion ID: 3050632
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Confusion Over Previous Delays

Text: Both the IJ and the BIA inaccurately summarized the events which led to the lengthy delays in the case. In his decision, the IJ found that Mendoza “has been given a number of continuances, most, if not all, for his benefit because he was not ready to proceed.” In fact, as the chart below illustrates, none of the previously granted continuances were requested 9 Biwot dealt with a petitioner attempting to find an attorney for the first time. Here, Mendoza, like the petitioner in Hernandez-Gil, did have an attorney, but his attorney did not show up to the scheduled hearing. Though these situations are different, we believe that a similar factspecific approach is appropriate. 16028 MENDOZA-MAZARIEGOS v. MUKASEY by Mendoza because he was unprepared. Instead, the continuances were a result of, among other things, a mistake by the Arizona IJ, a change in venue to Los Angeles, a conflict on attorney Paek’s calendar, a conflict on the IJ’s calendar, and a priority case that took precedence over Mendoza’s case. Date of Details of Reason for Proceeding Proceeding Continuance Aug. 7, 1998 Mendoza conceded For preparation of removability cancellation of removal application at suggestion of government attorney Aug. 17, 1998 IJ accepted For merits hearing cancellation of removal application Sept. 8, 1998 IJ discovered he had For preparation of given Mendoza the correct form wrong form Dec. 1, 1998 Initial hearing after For Paek to file the case transferred to cancellation of Los Angeles removal application Feb. 11, 1999 IJ accepted For merits hearing cancellation of removal application and scheduled merits hearing for Aug. 9th, 2000 MENDOZA-MAZARIEGOS v. MUKASEY 16029 July 3, 2000 Scheduling hearing. Rescheduling Attorney Paek did required because of not show up because IJ’s conflict with of his family’s Aug. 9th, 2000 date Fourth of July celebration. Merits hearing scheduled for first available date, Oct. 10, 2001 Oct. 10, 2001 Rescheduled merits Priority case took hearing for first precedence, attorney available date, Sept. Paek unable to wait 18, 2003 for that case to end10 Sept. 18, 2003 Merits hearing Continuance denied conducted [3] The above chart illustrates that, contrary to the IJ’s assertion that Mendoza was to blame for the lengthy delays, Mendoza timely complied with the instructions he received from the IJs.11 He appeared at every hearing at the appointed time. He filed his initial application for cancellation of removal while being detained in Arizona, and even gathered 10 The IJ’s decision stated that on October 10, 2001, attorney Paek “requested a continuance not only orally but in writing indicating that they were not prepared to go forward.” At oral argument in front of this court on July 12, 2007, the government acknowledged that this statement was not accurate. The October 10, 2001 transcript reflects that the case was ready to proceed but that attorney Paek requested a continuance because a priority case had to be heard first and he was not able to wait for it to be heard. The IJ’s response to Paek’s request was “[a]ll right. Not a problem, counsel. We’ll reset this matter then pursuant to your request.” The matter was then set for hearing on September 18, 2003, almost two years later. 11 The IJ faulted Mendoza for not completing his criminal record check, despite the fact that, as mentioned above, the IJ made it clear at the previous hearings that attorney Paek, not Mendoza, was responsible for this task. 16030 MENDOZA-MAZARIEGOS v. MUKASEY supplemental information from his family in California during his detention. Mendoza also, as instructed by the court, dutifully notified the court of his changed address. [4] Thus, when Mendoza was deserted by attorney Paek, his retained counsel, and requested a brief continuance so that his newly hired attorney Boachie-Yiadom could prepare to represent him, he was not requesting “another” continuance, as the IJ suggested. Rather, having found himself abandoned by his retained attorney, Mendoza was trying to preserve his right to counsel.