Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Justice
Name:EUCEDA-RUEDA,OSCAR
A 077-479-978
Date of this notice: 11/10/2016
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,
DOnttL C
Q./v'L)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Adkins-Blanch, Charles K.
Mann. Ana
O'Connor, Blair
Userteam: Docket
Date:
Cite as: Oscar Euceda-Rueda, A077 479 978 (BIA Nov. 10, 2016)
NOV 1 0 2016
EUCEDA-RUEDA, Oscar
Respondent
APPLICATION:
)
)
)
)
)
In Removal Proceedings
File No. A# 077-479-978
The Department of Homeland Security has not filed an opposition to the Respondent's
motion.
II.
APPLICABLE LAW
DISCUSSION
The Respondent makes two claims in his Motion: 1. He never received a hearing notice
indicating that he was required to appear before the immigration court or any correspondence
from the court or his lawyer that he was scheduled for a hearing, and 2. His lawyer informed him
that he did not have to go to the immigration court because he had a pending TPS application.
An examination of the record reveals that the Notice to Appear was personally served on
the Respondent on February 17, 1999. The Notice to Appear set forth a hearing date of July 27,
1999, at 9:00 a.m. Further, the Certificate of Service on the Notice to Appear indicates that the
Respondent was provided oral notice, in the Spanish language, of the consequences of a failure
to appear, and the notice bears the Respondent's signature. Consequently, the Court finds that the
Respondent received personal service of the Notice to Appear, which included the scheduled
hearing date, and thus, his claim that he never received notice of the hearing is without merit.
The Respondent also claims that he failed to appear because his attorney told him that he
did not have to go. Specifically, both in his motion and in an affidavit attached to this motion, the
Respondent alleges that his failure to appear was also because an attorney that he hired told him
2
The Court has carefully reviewed the arguments and the entire record before it. All
evidence has been considered, even if not specifically discussed further in this decision. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Respondent's Motion to Reopen.
that he "did not have to go . . . because he had a pending TPS application." See Respt's' Mot. to
Reopen, at 3; Respt's' Affidavit, at ,r 7. Inasmuch as the Respondent is making a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel, the Court finds that the Respondent has failed to comply with
the requirements necessary to reopen on that basis.
Here, the Respondent has not substantially complied with the Lozada requirements.
Respondent does comply with the first requirement because the motion is supported by an
affidavit from the Respondent himself. The Respondent does not, however, provide the name of
an attorney and does not attach any documentation that would show an agreement for
representation that he had with an attorney at that time. Regarding the second Lozada
requirement, the Respondent offers no evidence that the unnamed attorney was informed of the
allegations leveled against him/her and given an opportunity to respond. The Court notes that the
Respondent never states that he notified the attorney of his allegations in any form. As the Board
noted in Lozada, "the potential for abuse is apparent where no mechanism exists for allowing
former counsel, whose integrity or competence is being impugned, to present his version of the
events if he so chooses, thereby discouraging baseless accusations." 19 I&N Dec. at 639. To
comply with the third Lozada requirement, the Respondent's motion must reflect whether a
complaint has been filed with appropriate disciplinary authorities with respect to any violation of
counsel's ethical or legal responsibilities, and if not, why not. Here, there is no evidence that the
Respondent has ever filed a complaint against the attorney and has not given any explanation for
why a complaint has not been filed.
In sum, the Court does not find substantial compliance with Lozada due to the fact that
the Court has no evidence that the attorney was notified of the allegations against him/her and
given an opportunity to respond. Further, there is no indication that the Respondent has filed a
complaint and he has not explained why he has not complied with this requirement.
Consequently, the Court lacks an adequate basis for evaluating an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim. See Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. at 639 ("The high standard announced here is
necessary if we are to have a basis for assessing the substantial number of claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel that come before the Board. Where essential information is lacking, it is
impossible to evaluate the substance of such a claim."). The Court need not reach prejudice
because the Respondent has not satisfied the threshold requirements.
3
Here, the Court is not convinced that exceptional circumstances have been established
and, therefore, finds no justification for sua sponte reopening the case. The Respondent's
claimed reasons for his failure to appear do not conform with the acceptable "exceptional
circumstances" recognized or accepted by this Court.
In light of the foregoing, the Court will enter the following order:
ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE
It is ordered that:
5/1l/t5
Date
\_,
William A. Cassidy
United States Immigration Judge
-----Atlanta, Georgia
Lastly, the Court may sua sponte reopen a case over which it has jurisdiction at any time.
8 C.F.R. I003.23(b)(l); see also Matter of J-J-, 21 l&N Dec. 976 (BIA 1997). However, such
power should only be exercised in cases of "exceptional situations." Matter of J-J-, 21 I&N Dec.
at 984. The respondent has the burden to show that an exceptional situation exists. Matter of
Beckford, 22 I&N Dec. 1216, 1218-19 (BIA 2000). Moreover, the power to reopen a case sua
sponte "is not meant to be used as a general cure for filing defects or to otherwise circumvent the
regulations, where enforcing may result in hardship." Matter of J-J-, 21 I&N Dec. at 984. As a
general matter, the Court "invokes [its] sua sponte authority sparingly, treating it not as a general
remedy for any hardships created by enforcement of the time and number limits in the motions
regulations, but as an extraordinary remedy reserved for truly exceptional situations." Matter of
G-D-, 22 l&N Dec. 1132, 1133-34 (BIA 1999) (citing Matter of J-J-, supra). The Eleventh
Circuit has held that the discretion to reopen proceedings sua sponte is exceptionally broad and
not subject to judicial review. Lenis v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 525 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 2008).