What is the name of your state? NY
I recently took a look at my cousins immigration case and I feel sick.
Within the same week that my cousins found out their attorney didn't tell them they were 'deported' they contacted their current counsel. 8 months later he filed a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel and changed country conditions.
There were no details about the timing of discovery of previous atty conduct and seeking new counsel. There was nothing concerning the possibility of refuting the IJ's 'not credible' finding if the case was reopened - they thought they were going to sign papars, the atty didn't tell them until they were in the elevator that they were going to be interviewed. The finding was based primarily on dates!
I still don't get exactly what he proposed as the changed country conditions.
The motion was denied - lack of due dilligence and 'submissions don't indicate....'
Appeal to BIA also denied.
The fed appellate brief is due soon. I asked about 'why lack of due dilligence?' He said "well, that wasn't my main issue."
After some DISCUSSION he kind of indicated he could still 'fix' it. I didn't think you could introduce new facts at the appellate level. Am I wrong??
Would this be ineffective assistance or would it just be it was his option as to what theory to pursue?
Are my cousins screwed - again? Do I have any options?
( Their 1st atty has since been disbarred)
I would so much appreciate any advice! Thank you.
I recently took a look at my cousins immigration case and I feel sick.
Within the same week that my cousins found out their attorney didn't tell them they were 'deported' they contacted their current counsel. 8 months later he filed a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel and changed country conditions.
There were no details about the timing of discovery of previous atty conduct and seeking new counsel. There was nothing concerning the possibility of refuting the IJ's 'not credible' finding if the case was reopened - they thought they were going to sign papars, the atty didn't tell them until they were in the elevator that they were going to be interviewed. The finding was based primarily on dates!
I still don't get exactly what he proposed as the changed country conditions.
The motion was denied - lack of due dilligence and 'submissions don't indicate....'
Appeal to BIA also denied.
The fed appellate brief is due soon. I asked about 'why lack of due dilligence?' He said "well, that wasn't my main issue."
After some DISCUSSION he kind of indicated he could still 'fix' it. I didn't think you could introduce new facts at the appellate level. Am I wrong??
Would this be ineffective assistance or would it just be it was his option as to what theory to pursue?
Are my cousins screwed - again? Do I have any options?
( Their 1st atty has since been disbarred)
I would so much appreciate any advice! Thank you.
Last edited: