Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Andrei Jose Picado, A200 440 226 (BIA Sept. 25, 2013)

Andrei Jose Picado, A200 440 226 (BIA Sept. 25, 2013)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 294|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed the denial of a motion to reopen an order of removal issued in absentia where the respondent contended that his prior attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to inform him that his motion to change venue was denied or that he had to appear at his scheduled hearing; by failing to appear at the hearing herself or make alternative arrangements for representation; and by filing an untimely appeal with the Board and an untimely motion to reopen with the Immigration Judge. The decision was written by Member Neil Miller.
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed the denial of a motion to reopen an order of removal issued in absentia where the respondent contended that his prior attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to inform him that his motion to change venue was denied or that he had to appear at his scheduled hearing; by failing to appear at the hearing herself or make alternative arrangements for representation; and by filing an untimely appeal with the Board and an untimely motion to reopen with the Immigration Judge. The decision was written by Member Neil Miller.

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on Sep 30, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/12/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Eva Kozlowska, Esquire
   i
Executive Ofce
fr
Imigaon Review
Board ofImmigration AppealsOce of the Clerk
5107 Leburg Pik Sut 2000Fal Chc Vrgna 2204
The Law Oices of Eva Kozlowska, PLLC233 Broadway 2rd Fl. Ste 2348HS/ICE Oce o Che Consel ORL3535 Laon Road, Suite 100Orlando,  32803New York, Y 10279Name: PCADO, ANDRE JOSEA 200-40-26Date of tis notice9/25/2013
closed s  copy o he Bod's deciso ad oe i the above-eece case.cosue
 b:M N P
Sceey,
D
c
tA
Don CrChe Cek
ld
m:
k
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
Cite as: Andrei Jose Picado, A200 440 226 (BIA Sept. 25, 2013)
 
,(-
U.S Dpartmnt of Jusce
Deiso of e Bod of  ao AppealsExecutve Oce r Imigraon ReviewFals Cch Vgia
22041
File: 00 40 226 -Ordo, FL re: DEI JOSE PICDO EMOV POCEEDGSMOTION Dae:ON BEHAF OF SPODva Kozlowska, sqrePLICATION: eopenng 
SEF'2 5
2013
e reponden wa ordered remove in sena by  aon udge on May 26, 201.His rst moon to roen ha order was denied by  nmaon ude on Ocober 3, 2011,d on u 26, 202, he Bod nd at the apea of a decsion w tey lede· respondent en ld a second moon to reopen whch wa so dened by  iatonJdge, d e Bod dismissed te ape of at dcision on Mch 29, 2013.
O
June 25,203, e respondent submitted te inst motion o reopen Th Depn of Homd Secry h ot respondd to the moionThe rcord will be remded
A
in who sees o reoen removal procedings llowng  ey of   asea  reov orer mst demonsate at  aens failure o app was de to "excponcrcmstces Scio 240(b)(5)(C)(i) of th miaon d Nationaity Act, 8 U.SC§ 1229ab)(5)(C)(i) eective asssc of conel may b  exceion ccumtce only if e alen shows prejuce
Dakne
v.
US
Att' Gen
399 F.3d 1269, 1274 ( Cir2005). clam of inectve assistce of cosl may on to ecepio cicmsce "when  applcts fae to ap s de to hs attoe's  nsco.
Montan Cisneros v
.
At Gen.
51 F.3d 1224, 226 (11 Cir. 2008) (concdig h respondt showed rejdicea his aoy told him e id no need to apar at eng d a veue had ben chged);
 see als atter f Galva
21 I&N Dc 472, 4734 BIA 1996) (a reondent showed  predce where he was incoectly ifod by s aoeys stf a e had een contce d he did no need to appear at he hng). T reondnt contends at er consel, s Goldenber, proded iectiveasssc by not tling 
h
 hat is motion to chge venue was did or at he ha to p at hs schedled eng, d as consel did not app at e hen erself, or me altativeements r s rresntation. Te respondent er noes a cosel led a facy defecv moion to chge vene,  ntimly app bere th Bod, d  untimely moonto ropen re e miation Judg While  record rects t e note submssons we led pro se, Ms. oldenberg has not responded to he lgations a she, fac, was responsible r lng em Th repondent has sbmied evidence rec complice wi e procedural reqirms in
Mater ofLzada
9 I&N Dec. 637 IA 1988) Moon, s C,
I,
J Danev
S
Att' Gen,
399 F3d 269 (th Cir. 2005). Morover, as consls eors rvted 
h
om presenng is case, s casd hm prejudcial h.  l of his record, we nd it 
Cite as: Andrei Jose Picado, A200 440 226 (BIA Sept. 25, 2013)

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->