NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 21a0211n.06 No. 20-3916 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Apr 21, 2021 ABDALSALAM OMRAN, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) APPEALS ) Respondent. ) ) BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH, GRIFFIN, and DONALD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Abdalsalam Omran petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings and rescind a removal order entered in absentia. As set forth below, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. In November 2015, Omran, a native and citizen of Israel and the Occupied Territories, entered the United States as a nonimmigrant B-2 visitor with authorization to remain for a six- month period. Omran submitted an asylum application in October 2016. On March 2, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security detained Omran and served him with a notice to appear in removal proceedings, charging him with remaining in the United States for a time longer than permitted by his visa. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). Thomas Gilbert subsequently entered an appearance as Omran’s attorney. At a hearing before the immigration court on March 26, 2018, Omran, through counsel, admitted the factual allegations set forth in the notice to appear and conceded removability as charged. During that hearing, the immigration court provided Gilbert No. 20-3916, Omran v. Garland with a notice scheduling a hearing for April 26, 2018. Two days after the hearing, on March 28, 2018, the immigration court sent Gilbert another notice scheduling a hearing for May 29, 2018. Gilbert appeared at the hearing on May 29, 2018, but Omran did not. At that hearing, the immigration judge (“IJ”) found that removability had been established as charged and ordered that Omran be removed in absentia. Two weeks later, Omran filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings and rescind the in absentia removal order based on exceptional circumstances, asserting that counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to keep him apprised of the scheduled hearing date. The IJ denied Omran’s motion to reopen and again ordered his removal. The IJ first found that reopening based on lack of notice was unwarranted because counsel received the hearing notice. With respect to Omran’s ineffective-assistance claim, the IJ pointed out that Omran complained about his current counsel and that the procedural requirements for ineffective-assistance claims established by Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988), relate to former counsel. The IJ went on to determine that Omran had failed to comply with the Lozada requirements: his affidavit inadequately detailed his agreement with counsel and counsel’s failures; he provided an affidavit from another attorney at the firm, Svetlana Schreiber, rather than counsel of record; and he failed to file a complaint with the appropriate disciplinary authorities or provide an explanation …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals