U.S.

Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals

Office of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church. Virginia 20530

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - EAZ

Rai & Associates

235 Montgomery Street, Suite 860
San Francisco, CA 94104

P .0. Box 25158

Phoenix, AZ 85002

Name: SINGH, RAJINDER

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.
Sincerely,

[)Gn!UL caAAJ
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk

Enclosure
Panel Members:
Miller, Neil P.

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

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

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Rai, Hardeep

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

A205-935-843
ICE
1705 E. HANNA ROAD., #366

P.O. Box 25158

Phoenix, AZ 85002

ELOY, AZ 85122

A 205-935-843

Name: SINGH, RAJINDER

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.
Sincerely,

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk

Enclosure
Panel Members:
Miller, Neil P.

Userteam:

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

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

SINGH, RAJINDER

U.s:Department of Justice

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

,, Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 20530

File:

Date:

A205 935 843 - Eloy, Arizona

JAN 2 0 2015

In re: RAJINDER SINGH

MOTION
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:

Hardeep Rai, Esquire

APPLICATION: Reopening
ORDER:
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 ofLozada, 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.

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

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS