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
David Kirwa Kurgat, A089 003 420 (BIA Apr. 25, 2014)

David Kirwa Kurgat, A089 003 420 (BIA Apr. 25, 2014)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 415|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded the record for further consideration of the respondent’s application for adjustment of status. The Board concluded the respondent established a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel based on allegations that his prior attorney failed to prepare and submit an Affidavit of Support (Form I-864) in connection with adjustment application. The decision was written by Member Linda Wendtland.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded the record for further consideration of the respondent’s application for adjustment of status. The Board concluded the respondent established a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel based on allegations that his prior attorney failed to prepare and submit an Affidavit of Support (Form I-864) in connection with adjustment application. The decision was written by Member Linda Wendtland.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on Jul 01, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

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

07/19/2014

pdf

text

original

 
McKinney, Chrisopher B., Esq 900 Westor Road, nd Floor 105  Lake Avene, Se 09 Kansas Ciy, MO 641 ame: KURGAT, DAVID KIRWA
U    Exv O  Ig Rw
Board of Immigton ppels Oce of he Chef Clerk
507 Lb Pk, Suite 200 Fals Chrch Vrgna 0530
HSICE Ofce o Che Counse -KA 345 Grand Blvd, Sue 500 Kansas City, MO 6408 A 089-003420 Dae o his Notce 4/25/04
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decson and orde in e above-eerenced case. Encosure Pane Membes:
Wl  
Sncerel, Donna Car Cief Cek
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
Cite as: David Kirwa Kurgat, A089 003 420 (BIA Apr. 25, 2014)
 
U.S
Dpmnf Jusc
Executive Oce
r
Immaon Review Dcso f he Board  mma Apals Fa Crc, Vgna
03
File A089 003 40 Ksas City, MO In e DAVID IWA GAT
REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEA AND MTION ON EHA O REPODE: Crsoher B McKiney, Esie ON BEHALF OF S CHRGE Jusn Howd Assistat Che Cousel Dae  Nice: ec37(aC(), I&N Act [8 USC
§
127(a)((C)() ] - Nonigr vate condions of satu PPLICAIN Adjusmen of sas; connce; olu depure
APR
25 014
The respondent appeals e Iigation ges Mrch 28, 202, ecsio denying te esponden's reques  a contince, peteiing hs appicaton  ausent of stas e secon 245(a) of te  igration an Natonity Act, 8 USC
§
255(a),  denyig hs aplcation r oluty depre ung e enency o his apea, the esonet led a motin o re base on a cam o ineectie assistance of counseThe motion ill be grted, an e ecd wl be rene t e Immigaion Jge r re rceedings consisten  is onion d r enry of a ne decision. hug hs otion, he responent conends at e shu be eried to aply r ajusen o stas de sectin 25(a) f he Act becase hs applcaton s pretee by  te Imigraion uge de o neective assistance of coel
ee
esonens Moon a 5-9. Accordg to e esonden, is prir cse led to colee  subi a Fo 864 Adai of upor depte te c that e ha pied ro cunsel wit his enire e an hs snsor ad povied io csel w all o the necessy ocentatin to compete te rm va fx po to e esoden's proceedngs o Mch 8, 2012, retng in peteission of is apcaon
See id.
a 6 e resondent e clais ta prio counse advise hm ha a cnnuce wo be gte at the eng on Mch 28, 2012, sc that hs wesses nee  ot appea in cou.
Se d
As suc, the resondent leges at e pre pror cse  al o e necessy irmaon eeed to coete the austment of saus applcation but pr counsel ie to o so, intead relg o a equest  a contnuance a e Mach 8, 2012, herng
ee d
at 59 A success motion base on a cam o ieectve asssance o cnsel mst satis two conitos rs, te cm must comly wit
Mae
of
Lzd,
9 & Dec
637, 639 IA 1988 Bey, e
Lzda
reuireents are
(1)
a e oion be sppoed by a aat eaing couses ings, 2) at consel be ined  the alegations, a 3) at
-£ w
Cite as: David Kirwa Kurgat, A089 003 420 (BIA Apr. 25, 2014)
 
089 003 420
 e motion show tha dcipinary chrge have been e w he appropiate uorty, or f not, aequately expa wy o.
Id
Second, e ien "mut so sow hat e or se w prejuce by te actons or inacton of couse.
See Mater of Asaad, 23
&N
Dec.
553, 556
(BIA
2003)
 t case, the respondent as cope w te proceur requremets of
Mater f Lozda, supra
As to te isue of prejudce, e responen cais hat e  hi sposor prove al of te ifotio needed to comete he Avt of Suppor pror to te Marc
28, 2012,
e. n his response, pror coue umte eence sowi at e ponor fe o im, inter aa, a 
 o her prior year's
re   empoyment leer.1 However, pror cousel cms at r varou reaso s foato was suce o complee e Aa of Suppo. Aon w his oto e responent has proved a aavt om he sposor. n er adavi, e sosor states e was tod by pror cousel tat he hd receved her ocumens d t he was ong to le he Adavt of Spor bere the net eing. u, the reective cs n re to i ponor y the respoden  ror cone e n conriction. e respoet so asers ou is motio tat he provde pror coe wi i etre e om  previous couse bere the Marc
28, 2012,
eri.
 tis red, pror cose tate  is reponses to bo he repodet and the bar ocis a he i ot recive e le ti aer te Mch
28, 2012,
 proceedig. or his p, e repoent proved a f e sent  to pror coue om detetion on Feby
15, 2012,
 stae hat, aong wi ht , e d over h ene e. Wie he f ubmtted wa oly a pae  en, t rers o a pore previous fa,  on he next pae s  eter dte ebrry
17, 202,
aying  hereby f o you he responents convicon recors. Agai, as o ts ssue, e respective cams by e reponent  prior counse e n coaicio. e responent so sers tha pior conse avse m at cour appece by h eses were not necessy on Marc
28, 2012,
on e sis of a request r a cotiuce.
ee
Respondents Moton a
6.
  regar, te respodent a provied  av om tese weses statig ter ndetain at rior coune ad iicae at tey nee no aten  te Mc
28, 2012,
eg. owever, pior couse spes is clam vorosly n hs reponses, aserig a he wou never advise  cien  ts way becuse he coul ver kow a  Immigraon Juge wo in ct ant a connuace. Aa, e cts o e sse e n spute. Under these circstce, we cocue tat r puoe of te insta ppeal d otion,  e responent has me his burde of estashn a
 pim facie
ineective stce of couse cam, reqn  remd to the mmaon Juge to deee te ut n red to e  vrous sue  caims by bot e reponent d prior counse.
 ts regar, o remd,  te mion de o deveop the recor an n cs ernent to e neectve
Aou e epoyet eer  appenty not on eerhead d there  o expct ication of e tite of e person who ed the documen, tere is a business aes a te boo of te eer  e nottion
" ON
ppe e o he aory' e, which  my icate a tie or osito
2
Cite as: David Kirwa Kurgat, A089 003 420 (BIA Apr. 25, 2014)

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)//-->