Case Explained: JEREMIAS MEDRADO PASQUAL-ANDRES v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-08-04 The eleventh-circuit granted Jeremias Pasqual-Andres’s petition for review and vacated the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held that the BIA abused its discretion by requiring a complaint to a state bar as the sole method to satisfy the third prong of *Matter of Lozada*, which mandates that petitioners file complaints with “appropriate disciplinary authorities.” The court reasoned that the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is an appropriate disciplinary authority because its 2009 regulatory enhancements provide robust sanctions and serve the same policy goals as state bar complaints, including deterring meritless claims and policing attorney conduct. Additionally, the court held that strict adherence to *Lozada*’s procedural requirements is not necessary; substantial compliance is sufficient, and Pasqual-Andres’s filing of an EOIR complaint satisfied this standard by meeting the underlying purposes of the rule. The practical consequence is that the BIA’s denial is vacated, requiring the agency to reconsider the motion to reopen in light of the court’s ruling. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.