A briefing of Ineffective Counsel.
This next passage is the detailed letter from our new lawyer approaching the previous lawyer for an explanation on his actions:
"I have been retained by Mr. And Mrs. Carmona, see EOIR 28, to attempt to reopen the removal proceedings of Mr. Carmona, concluded on January 31, with the entry of an order of voluntary departure, and waiver of all appeals.
In essence, Mr. Carmona alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. He alleges that he entered into a contract whereby he agreed to pay you $ 3,500, and you agreed to represent him (effectively) in removal proceedings. All along, given the substantial consideration, he thought that you were actively working towards an effective defense from removal, especially because, in your contract, you listed that the mentioned consideration included two master hearings and one individual hearing.instead, he alleges that you sent him by himself at a master hearing, and the second time on January 31, you attended a second master hearing, where he was simply told that his choice was between deportation and voluntary departure.
More substantively, Mr. Carmona alleges that the assistance of counsel was ineffective because he was not informed of the relief of cancellation of removal for non-lawful permanent residents under INA? 240A (b), and he alleges that he is prima facie eligible for this relief: he has been in the United States since 1992, has a United States wife and three United States children. Most importantly, Mr. Carmona alleges that he would be able to show? Exceptional? And? Extremely unusual hardship,? To his family because of the particular circumstances in which his wife and his child Amanda, both victims of previous abuse and prone to bouts of depression, find themselves. As he was never even informed of this relief, he was deprived of the opportunity to have his day in court, exactly that? Individual? Hearing that you promised him in the contract, but which never took place.
Mr. Carmona alleges that his case was never even analyzed and his options were never explained. He was told that because of the petition filed by his wife he could simply go back to Mexico and pick up his visa. However, he was never really explained that this might not happen for at least ten years: if the discretionary waiver from the ten year bar of INA? 212 (a) (9) (B) is not granted there is in fact no administrative or judicial review of such consular determinations, in sum no avenue of relief.
These are, in essence, the allegations incorporated in the Carmonas' affidavits, herewith attached. Pursuant to pertinent case caw, see Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637,638 (BIA 1988), I am herewith informing you of same, so as to allow you an opportunity to respond."
From this letter our NEW lawyer sent to this old lawyer, Mr. Snyder sends my new lawyer a letter to state the following:
Mr. Snyder States "I have just opened your letter concerning my representation of Mr. Carmona. Needless to say, what you and the Carmona's state concerning possible relief in proceedings greatly troubles me and I myself am struggling to understand what happened in the course of my representation. The Carmona's are fine people and I am mortified to think that I mis-served them. Given your letter and your entry of appearance, I believe that I am now foreclosed from communicating with the and will not. Kindly convey to them for me that I will cooperate fully with you in the reopening proceedings, which from your letter appears to be fully their due. If, as part of your efforts to reopen proceedings, you think it useful for me in the first instance to communicate with the Office of Chief Counsel in order to shoulder full responsibility for a flawed pleading, in order to elicit his cooperation in a Motion to Reopen or to accomplish in some other way a re-pleading to the NTA, I will do that expeditiously. What is crucial now is for Mr. Carmona to get back into proceedings and request the relief you describe as available. I naturally am concerned with the propriety of my own conduct and should respond to certain statements in the affidavits, but that is for another time. I hope to develop the matter further with you by phone today" Sent by Albert Snyder sent to our present lawyer.
Since this, I have attempted to approach Mr. Snyder for my refund (3 different times, certified confirmation) of the amount I paid into this lawyer. He has been uncooperative. The present lawyer's fee of $5000.00 and the $3500.00 for the loss of Mr. Snyder and another fee of $110.00 for a motion to reopen case has cost us over 7500.00 in fees resulting from Mr. Snyder's misconduct regarding the preparation for our case in front of the judge on Jan 31. I have all supporting documents to prove these facts.
0 comments