Jeremias Medrado Pasqual-Andres v. U.S. Attorney General

Summary

The Eleventh Circuit granted Jeremias Medrado Pasqual-Andres’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motion to reopen immigration proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held that an EOIR disciplinary complaint qualifies as a complaint to an appropriate disciplinary authority under Matter of Lozada and, alternatively, that Pasqual-Andres substantially complied with Lozada’s requirements.

Holdings

1. Pasqual-Andres sufficiently exhausted his challenge because he raised the core issue of whether he complied with Lozada before the BIA and was not required to anticipate the specific rationale the BIA later used to reject his claim.
2. An EOIR complaint is an appropriate disciplinary authority under Matter of Lozada and satisfies the third Lozada requirement; a state-bar complaint is not the exclusive qualifying complaint.
3. Strict adherence to Lozada is not necessary; substantial compliance is sufficient, and Pasqual-Andres substantially complied with the third Lozada requirement by filing an EOIR complaint.
4. The court declined to decide whether it had jurisdiction to review the BIA's refusal to reopen sua sponte because vacating the denial of the motion to reopen already provided the relief sought.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Pasqual-Andres adequately exhausted his challenge to the BIA's interpretation of the disciplinary-complaint requirement in Matter of Lozada.
2. Whether a complaint filed with EOIR qualifies as a complaint to an appropriate disciplinary authority under the third Lozada requirement.
3. Whether substantial compliance with Lozada is sufficient and, if so, whether Pasqual-Andres substantially complied.
4. Whether the court could review the BIA's refusal to reopen proceedings sua sponte.

Disposition

vacated