ANDREW P.

JOHNSON, ESQUIRE
Law Ofices of Andrew P. Johnson
65 Broadway, Suite 2101
New York, NY 10006
Name: KABIR,TASHTHED HAIDER
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Immigation Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Ofce of the Clerk
5107 /,eesb11r
g
Pike, S11ite 2000
Fa/J C/11rc/, Vr
g
inia 22041
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel ATL
180 Spring Street, Suite 332
Atlanta, GA 30303
A096-114-231
Date of this notice: 1/21/2011
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Kendall-Clark, Molly
Sincerely,
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Cite as: Tashthed Haider Kabir, A096 114 231 (BIA Jan. 21, 2011)
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
U.S. Deprtment of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Imigation Review
;
Decision of the Boad of Imigation Appeals
Falls Chuch, Virginia 22041
File: A096 114 231 - Atlanta, GA
In re: TASHTHED HAIDER KBIR
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
MOTION
Date:
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Andrew P. Johnson, Esquire
APPLICATION: Reopening
JAN 21
201!
On June 8, 2010, the Board denied the respondent's motion to reopen, which was based on a
claim of inefective assistance of counsel. The respondent asserted that his frmer counsel, George
E. Lee, Esquire, failed to notif him about his immigration court hearing until the night befre, when
it was too late fr the respondent to make the trip fom New York to Atlanta. The frmer counsel
sent another attorey to the immigration court and this atorey did not admit Attorey Lee's eror
to the Immigration Judge. The respondent's failure to attend his hearing led to his being ordered
removed in absentia. Attorey Lee's error was not acknowledged in either the motion to reopen or
the subsequent appeal, both of which were fled by Lee's law frm.
The respondent's last motion claimed that a bar complaint had been fled against Attorey Lee,
and that Atorey Lee had been sent a copy of the complaint. The motion frther claimed that proof
of the complaint and notice to counsel were included with the motion. However, no such evidence
was included. The respondent's motion was denied because it filed to comply with Matter of
Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). The respondent has now fled the missing evidence wit a
statement that due to a clerical error it was not included with the last motion.
Considering the totalit of circumstances presented in the respondent's present motion, which
has not been opposed by te Department of Homeland Securit, the proceedings will be reopened
on our own motion under the provisions of 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(a), and the record will be remanded
to the Immigation Judge to vacate the in absentia order of removal and provide the respondent with
a new hearing.
ORDER: Proceedings are reopened under the provisions of 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(a).
FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge fr frther proceedings
not inconsistent with this order.
1 ..
F HE BOAR

Cite as: Tashthed Haider Kabir, A096 114 231 (BIA Jan. 21, 2011)
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t