Julio Lozada v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 12733, 1988 WL 94706, 857 F.2d 10 (1988)
Rule of Law:
Ineffective assistance of counsel in civil deportation proceedings constitutes a denial of due process only if the proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting their case, and any such unfairness may be cured by the Board of Immigration Appeals’ subsequent full consideration of the merits.
Facts:
- Julio Lozado, a 52-year-old citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident on January 1, 1974.
- During his residency, Lozado was convicted of receiving stolen property, conspiracy to commit larceny, and obtaining money under false pretenses.
- The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) issued an Order to Show Cause, charging Lozado as deportable due to these criminal convictions.
- Lozado admitted deportability but applied for relief from deportation under sections 212(c) (discretionary waiver) and 244(e) (voluntary departure).
Procedural Posture:
- The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) issued an Order to Show Cause against Julio Lozado for deportability.
- An immigration judge denied Lozado’s application for relief from deportation on March 13, 1985, finding him statutorily ineligible for voluntary departure and not meriting discretionary waiver.
- Lozado’s former counsel filed a notice of appeal (Form I-290A) with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), stating only general reasons for the appeal and indicating intent to file a separate brief, which was never filed.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily dismissed Lozado's appeal on July 8, 1986, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i) for failing to specify the reasons for appeal.
- While a petition for review was pending in the federal court (First Circuit), Lozado filed a motion to reopen proceedings before the BIA in January 1987.
- The federal court (First Circuit) entered an order holding the case in abeyance pending the BIA’s resolution of the motion to reopen.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied Lozado’s motion to reopen on April 13, 1988, after considering the merits of his claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does ineffective assistance of counsel in a deportation proceeding, specifically the failure to adequately state reasons for appeal and file a brief, constitute a denial of due process when the Board of Immigration Appeals later fully considers the merits of the alien's claims in a motion to reopen?
Opinions:
Majority - Coffin, Circuit Judge
No, ineffective assistance of counsel in a deportation proceeding does not constitute a denial of due process when the Board of Immigration Appeals later provides full consideration to the alien's claims through a motion to reopen. The court found no error in the BIA's summary dismissal of Lozado's initial appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i) because his stated reasons—that the immigration judge's decision was 'against the weight of the evidence,' 'against the law,' and 'arbitrary and capricious'—were too vague and failed to provide meaningful information about the asserted errors, as required by BIA precedent like Matter of Valencia. The court clarified that this regulation applies to all appeals lacking specified reasons, not just frivolous ones. While deportation proceedings are civil and lack a Sixth Amendment right to counsel, aliens are entitled to due process. Ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes a denial of due process only if it renders the proceeding 'so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.' Even if former counsel's initial failures were severe enough to cause a denial of due process had proceedings stopped there, the BIA's subsequent 'careful attention' and 'serious consideration' of Lozado’s motion to reopen deportation proceedings negated any possible violation. Through the motion to reopen, the BIA thoroughly evaluated and responded to his specific allegations of error, effectively providing him with the full review he sought. Therefore, Lozado did not suffer ineffective assistance of counsel that rendered his proceeding fundamentally unfair.
Analysis:
This case establishes that the high bar for proving a due process violation based on ineffective assistance of counsel in civil deportation proceedings can be mitigated by subsequent procedural opportunities. It clarifies that even significant errors by counsel may not warrant a remand if the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ultimately provides a full and fair review of the merits through other means, such as a motion to reopen. The ruling reinforces the BIA's authority to summarily dismiss appeals that lack specific grounds, compelling practitioners to file detailed reasons for appeal, and provides guidance on the circumstances under which such dismissals are appropriate. This affects future cases by emphasizing that the overall fairness of the process, including later opportunities for review, is paramount when assessing due process claims in the immigration context.
