Bd. did not err in denying alien’s fifth motion to reopen removal proceedings, as well as his third motion to reconsider denials of prior motions to reopen, where: (1) IJ had entered 2001 removal order against alien in absentia after alien had failed to appear at removal proceeding; and (2) IJ had denied alien’s 2013 original motion to reopen removal proceedings, after rejecting alien’s claim that he was unaware of hearing date for original removal proceeding, or that his original counsel was ineffective. Bd. could properly find that alien had not established exception to chronological and numerical limits that barred consideration of successive motions to either reopen or reconsider, and alien otherwise had failed to comply with requirement in instant motion to reopen that he provide notice to any of his prior counsel whom he alleged had rendered ineffective assistance of counsel so as to give them opportunity to respond to said allegations. Fact that alien had filed charge with ARDC against one of his prior counsel did not constitute requisite notice of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in instant proceeding.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Immigration