ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

Dear Editor:
Please let me write regarding important information to all immigration practitioners throughout the US concerning discipline of immigration practitioners under the new federal regulations. The Cal. State Bar initiated disciplinary proceedings on purely immigration matters. I said they had no jurisdiction since new fed regs preempted under Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, etc. I only practice immigration law exclusively. The admistrative Judge of the CA State Bar Ct. placed me on involuntary inactive enrollment (not discipline). The BIA immediately suspended me from practicing in the BIA, Immigration Courts and INS. An adjudicating official found jurisdiction of State Bars and suspended me for a year. On appeal to the BIA, they expelled me. The OGC asked the BIA to publish their decision making it a precedent because there had not been any new guidence since Matter of Sparrow. That they had disciplined over a hundred attorneys and this case was the only one to reach this appellate level and that they did not foresee any other cases being appealed in the near future.They recently published an amended decision making it a precedent decision. In re Miguel Gadda, 23I&N Dec. 645(BIA 2003) Int. Dec. 3496. Do you have to be a member of a State Bar to practice immigration law? If you practice immigration law and are admitted to federal bars (Dist. Cts, Circuit Appeals Cts, US Supreme Court) are you still subject to discipline by State Bars simply because you acquired membership through the State Bars? Is this a marriage forever that cannot be dissolved? Are the new federal regulations valid in that they were supposed to revamp the disciplinary system? Do they allow dual discipline by the State Bars even though they espoused national uniformity? Did they really mean it when they said that the State Bars would no longer be involved in the discipline system of immigration practitioners because they had complaint forms, hearing proceedings, appeals and judicial review? I feel this decision is important for all immigration practitioners throught the US, etc. I have pending cases in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the District Court for the Northern District of California regarding these issues. Please put this on ILW.COM and allow comments on these important issues which affect all immigration practitioners.

Miguel Gadda