Rai, Hardeep Rai & Associates 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 860 San Francisco, CA 94104

Name: SINGH, RAJINDER

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk

5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000

Falls Church. Virginia 20530

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - EAZ P .0. Box 25158 Phoenix, AZ 85002

A 205-935-843

Date of this notice: 1 /20/2015

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

Enclosure

Panel Members: Miller, Neil P.

Sincerely,

[)Gn!UL c aAAJ

Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Imm

igrant & Refugee A

ppellate Center | w

ww

.irac.net

Cite as: Rajinder Singh, A205 935 843 (BIA Jan. 20, 2015)

SINGH, RAJINDER A205-935-843 ICE 1705 E. HANNA ROAD., #366 ELOY, AZ 85122

Name: SINGH, RAJINDER

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk

5 /07 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000

Falls Church. Virginia 20530

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - EAZ P.O. Box 25158 Phoenix, AZ 85002

A 205-935-843

Date of this notice: 1/20/2015

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision in the above-referenced case. This copy is being provided to you as a courtesy. Your attorney or representative has been served with this decision pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § 1292.S(a). If the attached decision orders that you be removed from the United States or affirms an Immigration Judge's decision ordering that you be removed, any petition for review of the attached decision must be filed with and received by the appropriate court of appeals within 30 days of the date of the decision.

Enclosure

Panel Members: Miller, Neil P.

Sincerely,

Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Userteam:

Imm

igrant & Refugee A

ppellate Center | w

ww

.irac.net

Cite as: Rajinder Singh, A205 935 843 (BIA Jan. 20, 2015)

U.s:Department of Justice Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ,, Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 20530

File: A205 935 843 - Eloy, Arizona

In re: RAJINDER SINGH

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

MOTION

Date:

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Hardeep Rai, Esquire

APPLICATION: Reopening

ORDER:

JAN 2 0 2015

The proceedings in this matter were last before the Board on July 28, 2014. On November 25, 2014, the respondent filed the motion to reopen now before the Board alleging ineffective assistance of prior counsels. The respondent has complied, in part, with the process requisite to asserting such a claim. See generally Matter of Compean, Bangaly & J-E-C-, 25 I&N Dec. I (A.G. 2009); Matter of Lozada, 19 l&N Dec. 637, 639-640 (BIA 1988).

The respondent has provided detailed affidavits setting forth the bases for his assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel; evidence of fee arrangements and payments both in the United States and abroad to former counsels; evidence of representation by former counsels; bar complaints filed against one of the attorneys in two different jurisdictions, California and Texas; adverse information from the press relating to an individual associated with former counsel who also played a part in the representation of the respondent; and, a press report naming the individual who the respondent met at the detention center who referred him to former counsel. The respondent paid substantial fees to an attorney, referred to him by an individual at the Eloy detention facility, who, with the assistance of other attorneys, appeared in proceedings on behalf of the respondent, but ultimately failed to file an application for relief by the deadline set resulting in the respondent's inability to seek the relief of asylum in the United States.

The Department of Homeland Security has not responded to the motion. We accept the respondent's detailed affidavit, which we accept as true for purposes of this motion (see Najmabadi v. Holder, 591 F.3d 983, 994 (9th Cir. 2010)). Given the circumstances detailed in the respondent's affidavit, we find that an adequate showing of due diligence has been made, that equitable tolling is appropriate and that reopening should be granted. See Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2011). On remand, the respondent shall have the opportunity to apply for any relief for which he may be eligible.

Accordingly, the respondent's motion to reopen is granted and the record is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Imm

igrant & Refugee A

ppellate Center | w

ww

.irac.net

Cite as: Rajinder Singh, A205 935 843 (BIA Jan. 20, 2015)