Facts: In September of 2017, a citizen of El Salvador came to the firm seeking help to get her in absentia removal order reopened.
The Firm’s Representation: An immigration court will enter an in absentia order of removal when the respondent fails to show up for his or her court date. In absentia removal orders are often very difficult to reopen, and this case was no exception. After obtaining our client’s court file, we noticed that our client had been represented by a Texas attorney for two years prior to the date that our client received an in absentia order of removal. Yet, that attorney never contacted our client in the two years of his representation. The firm filed a motion to rescind/reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The motion was vigorously opposed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) who asserted that it was our client who was at fault, not her attorney. The firm responded with a reply brief asserted that the position taken by DHS was incorrect, that it was ultimately the duty of the attorney of record to take appropriate measures to make sure his or her clients are properly informed of their court dates.
Outcome: On February 6, 2018, the Immigration Judge granted our motion based on the finding that our client’s attorney of record was ineffective.
Comments: The firm does not take pleasure in filing motions to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. However, our duty is to our clients and we must zealously represent our client’s interests regardless of where that representation leads.