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:
It is mind boggling that over 100 immigration practitioners have been disciplined by the BIA and none of those attorneys have appealed due to fear, intimidation or lack of knowledge of the new Fed. regulations regarding discipline of immigration practitioners. I am a solo practitioner that appealed what I believed was right and now find myself in a precedent decision by the BIA. In re Miguel Gadda, Attorney, 23 I&N Dec. 645 (BIA Sept. 25, 2003). This amended published decision is different from the original decision. The issues decided by the BIA are 1. The State Bars have the authority to discipline immigration practitioners in immigration matters. 2.The BIA can increase discipline from a one-year suspension to expulsion from practice. The posting of my letter received a comment from Bruce A. Hake who validated the importance of this decision as precedent. His letter stated that the arguments of preemption, Supremacy Clause, Due Process, Abuse of Discretion, etc., fly in the face of the fundamental organization of the US legal system. What does this mean? Is this not simplistic and too broad? He also recommends that lawyers read the BIA's decision, which is clear, correct, and instructive. We agree. Lawyers should read this decision and see the glaring errors in the BIA decision. His recommendation seems to be an endorsement or a commercial for the BIA's decision. The BIA's decision relies heavily on Waters v. Barr, 747 P. 2d 900, 902 (Nev. 1987)(finding that assistant US attorneys who were admitted to practice or engaged in practice of law in Nevada were subject to discipline by the state's Supreme Court and stating there is no question that an attorney may be subjected to discipline from any bar association to which he is a member"). I am not an Assistant US attorney connected to the Department of Justice or any governmental agency. I am not a member of the Nevada State bar or practice in Nevada, therefore neither Nevada nor California should discipline me on immigration matters. Mr. Hake and the BIA rely on the above cited case which is 16-years old, over-broad, scarcely touches the issues, inaccurate, inapposite and not cited correctly. While an analogy may be permitted, the BIA and Mr. Hake, by relying on this case are "trampling on graves." I am still wondering why none of the 100 attorneys that were disciplined did not exercise their right of appeal. If you are in that group, please send a comment.

Miguel Gadda