Randhawa

MEMORANDUM *

The BIA abused its discretion by dismissing Randhawa’s motion to reopen. Randhawa complied with the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), and can thus bring a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. His former attorney’s ineffective assistance amounts to a deprivation of due process in violation of Randhawa’s Fifth Amendment rights. We reverse the BIA and remand for a hearing on the merits of Randhawa’s asylum claim.

The BIA abused its discretion in finding that Randhawa failed to comply with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. at 639 . The BIA found that Randhawa failed to inform his former attorney, Mr. Ahluwalia, of several accusations that constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. These accusations were properly communicated to Ahluwalia in a letter sent by certified mail on April 15, 2000. This letter referenced and contained an affidavit that adequately warned Ahluwalia of all potential claims against him.

Ahluwalia’s ineffective assistance amounts to a deprivation of due process in violation of Randhawa’s Fifth Amendment rights. In the context of removal actions, such a deprivation exists when “the proceeding was so…