U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals
Office ofthe Clerk
5 /07 Leesburg l'tke. S1111c 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 20530

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - ELP

1545 Hawkins Blvd.
El Paso, TX 79925

Name: RUIZ-MIRAMON, RAUL

A 093-467-134
Date of this notice: 6/1/2015

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,

Dorut.L

ca.AA)

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Guendelsberger, John
Adkins-Blanch, Charles K.
Grant, Edward R.

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
Cite as: Raul Ruiz-Miramon, A093 467 134 (BIA June 1, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Szawarc, Vivian Noemi

LAW OFFICES OF VIVIAN N SZAWARC
4929 WILSHIRE BLVD, SUITE 820
LOS ANGELES, CA 90010

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Decision of the Board oflmmigration Appeals

Falls Church, Virginia 20530

File: A093 467 134 - El Paso, TX

Date:

JUN.012015

In re: RAUL RUIZ-MIRAMON

APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Vivian N. Szawarc, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS:

Brittany Butterfield
Assistant Chief Counsel

APPLICATION: Reopening

The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals the Immigration Judge's decision
dated April 29, 2014, denying his motion to reopen an order of removal entered in absentia on
November 18, 2013. The Board defers to the factual findings of an Immigration Judge, unless
they are clearly erroneous, but it retains independent judgment and discretion, subject to
applicable governing standards, regarding pure questions of law and the application of a
particular standard of law to those facts. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3). We have considered the
totality of the circumstances presented in this case, and find that an exceptional situation has
been demonstrated warranting reopening to allow the respondent another opportunity to apply
for relief from removal. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.23(b)(l); Matter ofJ-J-, 21 l&N Dec. 976 (BIA
1997). Accordingly, the appeal will be sustained, the proceedings will be reopened, and the
record will be remanded. 1
ORDER: The appeal is sustained, the proceedings are reopened, and the record is remanded
to the Immigration Court for further proceedings.

Regarding the respondent's claim to be the beneficiary of an approved visa petition, we note
that the Department of Homeland Security is deemed to know the status of such petition, and
should provide such information to the Immigration Court on remand.
Cite as: Raul Ruiz-Miramon, A093 467 134 (BIA June 1, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMMIGRATJON COURT
700 E. SAN ANTONIO, SUITE 750
EL PASO, TEXAS 7990 I

VIVIAN N. SZAWARE, ESQ.

4929 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 820
LOS ANGELES, CA 90010
IN THE MATTER OF
R UIZ-MIRAMON, RAUL

FILE: A093 467 134

UNABLE TO FORWARD - NO ADDRESS PROVIDED

M_

ATTACHED JS A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE. THIS DECISION IS FINAL
UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED WITH THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS WITHIN 30 CALENDAR
DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE MAILING OF THIS WRJTTEN DECISION. SEE THE ENCLOSED FORMS
AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPERLY PREPARING YOUR APPEAL. YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL,
ATTACHED DOCUMENTS, AND FEE OR FEE WAIVER REQUEST MUST BE MAILED TO:
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
5107 LEESBURG PIKE, SUITE 2000
FALLS CHURCH, VA 20530
ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE AS THE RESULT OF YOUR
FAILURE TO APPEAR AT YOUR SCHEDULED DEPORTATION OR REMOVAL HEARING. THIS
DECISION IS FINAL UNLESS A MOTION TO REOPEN IS FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
242B(c)(3) OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, 8 U.S.C. SECTION 1252B(c)(3) IN
DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS OR SECTION 240(c)(6), 8 U.S.C. SECTION 1229a(c)(6) IN REMOVAL
PROCEEDINGS. IF YOU FILE A MOTION TO REOPEN, YOUR MOTION MUST BE FILED WITH THIS
COURT:
IMMIGRATJON COURT
700 E. SAN ANTONIO, SUITE 750
EL PASO, TX 7990 I
ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE.
COURT CLERK
IMMIGRATION COURT

CC

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL

I 545 HAWKINS BLVD., SUITE 275
El PASO, TX 79925

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

May 2, 2014

RtJIZ MIRAMON, Raul

A093 467 134

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Immigration Court
700 E. San Antonio, Suite 750
El Paso, Texas 79901

RUIZ MIRAMON, Raul

File A093 467 134

In Removal Proceedings
Order of the Immigration Judge

The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, was ordered removed in absentia on
November 18, 2013. On December 30, 2013, the respondent, through newly obtained counsel,
filed a motion to reopen proceedings. The Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") filed an
opposition to the motion on January 7, 2014. The respondent filed a reply to the DHS's
opposition on February 7, 2014. The DHS filed a continuing opposition to the motion to reopen
on April 21, 2014. The motion will be denied.
The respondent moves to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. A
respondent may move to reopen proceedings based on "exceptional circumstances" if he files his
motion within 180 days of his final order of removal. INA 240(b)(5)(C)(i). The Board has
held that ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes an "exceptional circumstance" that can
excuse a respondent's absence from his removal proceedings. Matter ofLei, 221. & N. Dec. 113
(BIA 1998); Galvez-Vergara v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 798 (5th Cir. 2007).
Pursuant to Matter ofLozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), the respondent moving to
reopen proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel must also meet three procedural
requirements: he must (1) support his motion with an affidavit or other evidence that sets forth in
detail the agreement that was entered into between him and his allegedly ineffective counsel, (2)
inform the allegedly ineffective counsel of the allegations against him or her and give the
attorney an opportunity to respond, and (3) include in his motion whether a complaint against the
allegedly ineffective counsel has been filed with the appropriate disciplinary authorities, and if
not, why not. Matter ofLozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. at 639; Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487 (5th
Cir. 2000).
The respondent's motion is timely. INA 240(b)(5)(C)(i). However, based on
consideration of the entire record, the Court finds that the respondent has failed to meet the
procedural requirements set forth in Matter ofLozada.
The respondent alleges in his motion to reopen that he retained the services of
Bridgewater Law Firm prior to his November, 2013 hearing, and the services of Mr. Raymond

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

In the Matter of

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

RUIZ MIRAMON, Raul

A093 467 134

In his reply to the DHS's opposition to his motion to reopen, the respondent provided
further evidence regarding his complaint against Mr. Liu. Following the filing of his motion to
reopen, the respondent discovered his allegedly ineffective counsel's true name, and his
California bar number. On January 22, 2014, the respondent's current counsel filed a second
complaint against Mr. Liu, specifically. The respondent provided a copy of this complaint, and
also provided a copy of a note stating that the complaint was mailed to Raymond Liu, 180 S.
Anita Dr., Ste. 101, Orange, CA 92860. This Orange, CA address is also listed on the retainer
agreement from the Bridgewater Law Firm. The complaint contained a print-out of Mr. Liu's
information from the California State Bar website, which lists his address as 13337 South St.
#170, Cerritos, CA 90703. The respondent's motion and reply brief do not contain any
indication that the respondent's motion to reopen was sent to Mr. Liu. The motion also lacks any
evidence of a response from Mr. Liu.
The respondent's evidence puts into question whether the respondent's prior counsel
actually received notice of the respondent's bar complaint against him. Further, the respondent
has only provided evidence that he attempted to send a copy of his bar complaint, and has not
provided any evidence that he notified his prior counsel of his filing of a motion to reopen, and
the allegations of ineffective assistance therein, before this Court. See Neng Juan Xue v. Holder,
338 Fed.Appx. 425 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished). Accordingly, the respondent has failed to
comply with the second procedural requirement set forth in Matter ofLozada.
The respondent also moves to reopen to apply for new relief, to wit: cancellation of
removal and adjustment of status. Where an alien seeks reopening to apply for relief from
removal, his motion to reopen must include applications for any relief claimed. 8 C.F.R.
1003.23(b)(3). The respondent has not provided an application for cancellation of removal.
Further, the respondent claims to have an approved 1-130 filed on his behalf, but provides no
evidence that supports this claim. Accordingly, this Court cannot grant the respondent's motion
on the ground of applying for new relief.
Therefore, the motion to reopen shall be, and is hereby, DENIED. SO ORDERED.
Date: d'l,;?01'{
Place: -FfPa;o, Texas

Thomas C. Roepke
Immigration Judge
El Paso, Texas

In the motion to reopen, the attorney's name appears as "Raymond Lieu." In the respondent's affidavit, his name
is Raymond "Leo." In the reply, the respondent, through counsel, asserts that he has discovered the proper spelling
of his prior attorney's name, which is the spelling listed above.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Chun-i Liu, Esq. 1 in particular. He provided evidence of his retainer agreement with the
Bridgewater Law Firm, and detailed his relationship with Mr. Liu in an appended declaration.
The respondent's newly acquired counsel filed a complaint against Bridgewater Law Firm with
the California State Bar, and was unable to provide the bar number or full name of Mr. Liu. The
California State Bar, accordingly, responded that it had no records of the attorney against whom
the respondent was complaining.