Eleventh Circuit Holds That an EOIR Disciplinary Complaint Can Satisfy Lozada

The Eleventh Circuit ruled that a disciplinary complaint filed with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) satisfies the third procedural requirement of Matter of Lozada for reopening immigration proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel, eliminating the need for a separate state‑bar complaint.

Background on Lozada Requirements

• Matter of Lozada (19 I&N Dec. 637, BIA 1988) sets three procedural prerequisites for a non‑citizen seeking reopening on ineffective‑assistance grounds:
  1. An affidavit describing the attorney‑client agreement and alleged deficient representation.
  2. Notice to the former attorney of the allegations.
  3. A statement of whether a complaint has been filed with the “appropriate disciplinary authorities.”
• The “bar complaint” requirement has traditionally been interpreted to mean a filing with the attorney’s state bar, though Lozada itself refers more broadly to any appropriate disciplinary authority.

EOIR Complaint Satisfies the Third Requirement

In Pasqual‑Andres v. U.S. Attorney General (Eleventh Cir. Aug. 4 2026):

• The petitioner alleged that his former counsel filed an inadequate BIA appeal brief without his participation.
• He filed a disciplinary complaint with EOIR concerning the attorney’s conduct.
• The BIA denied reopening, insisting a state‑bar complaint was also required.
• The Eleventh Circuit held that EOIR is an appropriate disciplinary authority under Lozada and that its complaint‑process—capable of imposing suspension or disbarment from immigration‑court practice and of coordinating with state and federal bars—fulfills the statutory requirement.
• The court concluded the BIA had abused its discretion by demanding a separate state‑bar filing.

Substantial Compliance Is Sufficient

The court further held that substantial compliance with Lozada’s procedural mandates is adequate. Even if an EOIR complaint were deemed incomplete, it would still meet the purpose of the requirement by:

• Deterring meritless ineffective‑assistance claims.
• Placing the attorney’s conduct before a relevant disciplinary forum.
• Helping identify patterns of misconduct.

Thus, strict, formulaic adherence is not required so long as the core objectives of the procedural rules are satisfied.

Practical Considerations for Practitioners and Claimants

• The ruling applies within the Eleventh Circuit (Alabama, Florida, Georgia).
• Filing an EOIR complaint does not relieve a petitioner of the other Lozada obligations—affidavit, notice, timeliness, prejudice, and factual grounding.
• In many cases, filing both an EOIR complaint and a state‑bar complaint may still be advisable, especially when alleged misconduct extends beyond immigration‑court practice.
• Strategies should be tailored to the attorney’s licensing jurisdiction, the nature of the alleged misconduct, and the specific relief sought.
• Motions to reopen remain subject to strict filing deadlines; prompt legal counsel is essential.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Pasqual‑Andres clarifies that an EOIR disciplinary complaint alone meets Lozada’s third procedural requirement in the circuit, providing a more accessible avenue for non‑citizens to pursue reopening based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Claimants must still satisfy the remaining Lozada criteria and observe procedural deadlines.

Source article: www.murthy.com