![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
"Because the Immigration Judge erred in finding that the respondent's request for a continuance to permit the respondent to appear in federal court on a criminal sentencing matter was unreasonable and not supported by good cause (I.J. at 2), the record will be remanded to the Immigration Judge to permit the respondent to seek voluntary departure. ...
[W]e disagree with the Immigration Judge's comments that the respondent's former attorney acted frivolously in pursuing requests for a continuance and for administrative closure (U. at 4). Rather, we find that the respondent's former counsel simply attempted to pursue all reasonable avenues for the respondent, and that none of the actions she took on behalf of the respondent lacked an arguable basis in law or fact or were intended to cause unnecessary delay (I.J. at 4). See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.102(j)(1). We caution that rash and inflammatory comments impugning the motives of a party's attorney are not appropriate, and that great care must be taken to assure that sufficient justification exists for suggesting that an attorney's conduct has been unprofessional." - Matter of X-, Sept. 17, 2014. [Hats off to Jordan Forsythe!]