Atty for an alien failed to file necessary documentation in the CtApp, case was dismissed - client later paid, and atty tried to get case reinstated - in the course of which, he explained that he didn't work because client didn't pay. CtApp found that unethical, because once he began, he had to continue until granted leave to withdraw. Reinstated petition, but referred lawyer for potential discipline.
Singh v. Mukasey (2d cir. 5/12/08) (amending earlier order of 2/28/08)
STRAUB Hall Haight (D.Ct.)
The 2d Cir first held that the evidence did show conviction under subsection involving moral turpitude, and found the argument that the NTA should have alleged the subsection unexhausted. The 2d cir then addressed the continuance request. Its earlier panel opinion found jurisdiction, despite the apparent applicability of 1252(a)(2)(C), because the continuance request happened before entry of a final order. In its amended opinion, it assumed jurisdiction, but found the continuance denial justified.
In this case of first impression, the court held that the IJ has discretion to deviate from deadlines set out in local rules to accept late-filed documents, when a petitioner has demonstrated good cause for the delay and that substantial prejudice would likely result from the enforcement of the deadlines.
The 2nd Circuit held that the requirement to give notice of a right to appeal can be satisfied when an Immigration Judge asks if “both sides accept [ed] [the order] as final,” but only where it is clearly understood that the appeal right is being waived.
The 2d Cir found VAWA self-petitioner's use of another's last name (man with whom she had a child) at the consulate to be a material misrepresentation; and thus, no jurisdiction over 212(i) denial. Also held that she had been "admitted" on visa, despite fraudulent misrepresentation.
Second Circuit 
