Singh v. Bondi: The Seventh Circuit Re-affirms Strict, Tripartite Lozada Compliance for Ineffective-Assistance Motions in Immigration Proceedings

1. Introduction

Tarlochan Singh—a Sikh political activist who fled India after a series of violent attacks—petitioned the Seventh Circuit for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order that refused to reopen and reissue his removal decision. The pivotal question was procedural rather than substantive: Did Singh satisfy the well-known three-prong test in Matter of Lozada, 19 I.&N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988) for asserting ineffective assistance of counsel before the BIA?

The Court answered “No,” holding that strict compliance with Lozada remains mandatory, and neither mailing delays, good faith, nor a disciplinary complaint alone can cure defective filings. Singh’s petition was therefore denied.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Issue: Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen/reissue based on an ineffective-assistance claim.
Holding: No abuse occurred; Singh failed all three Lozada procedural prerequisites.
Outcome: Petition for review (Nos. 24-1602 & 24-2004) DENIED. A secondary petition was deemed waived for lack of argument.
Key Point of Law Established/Clarified: Filing a bar complaint, without (i) a clear attorney-client agreement and (ii) proof of notice/opportunity to respond, does not satisfy the second Lozada prong; any failure on one prong is independently fatal.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Precedent	How the Court Used It
Matter of Lozada, 19 I.&N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988)	Provided the three-step procedural framework. The Seventh Circuit reiterated that all three prongs are mandatory and independently dispositive.
Conti v. INS, 780 F.2d 698 (7th Cir. 1985)	Quoted for the principle that failure to follow procedural rules alone allows denial of a motion to reopen.
Patel v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 829 (7th Cir. 2007)	Provided a factually analogous roadmap: unclear scope of representation and lack of notice doomed Patel’s Lozada claim; the Court said “Patel is fatal here as well.”
Jiang v. Holder, 639 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2011)	Cited for the precise formulation of the three Lozada requirements.
Lopez-Garcia v. Barr, 969 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2020)	Reiterated the abuse-of-discretion standard and record-based review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4).

3.2 Legal Reasoning of the Court

Standard of Review. Denial of motions to reopen/reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion. The Court looks for a rational explanation, consistency with established policies, and absence of impermissible factors.
Application of Lozada.
- Prong 1 (Retainer & Duties): Singh admitted there was “no contract (oral or written).” Absent a documented scope of representation, the BIA could not evaluate counsel’s alleged failures.
- Prong 2 (Notice & Opportunity to Respond): Singh filed a bar complaint but never served prior counsel with the allegations nor supplied the BIA with any response. Citing Patel, the Court held this omission fatal.
- Prong 3 (Disciplinary Complaint): Although Singh attached a complaint form, he offered no proof of filing. The Court declined to reach this prong because failure on the first two sufficed for dismissal.
Precedential Harmony. By aligning with Patel and Conti, the panel emphasized doctrinal continuity: procedural rigor is indispensable to immigration reopening requests.

3.3 Potential Impact of the Judgment

The decision, though tightly focused on procedure, reverberates through immigration practice:

Heightened Attorney-Client Documentation: Practitioners must memorialize representation scope—even for discrete tasks such as “ghost-filing” a pro se petition.
Discourages “Shotgun” Motions: Motions founded on equitable pleas (postal delay, sympathetic facts) will fail absent full Lozada compliance.
Clarifies Bar-Complaint Misconception: Filing a grievance is not a shortcut for the notification requirement; the accused attorney must still receive direct notice and opportunity to respond.
Administrative Efficiency: The ruling empowers the BIA to summarily deny procedurally defective motions, reducing appellate clutter.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Motion to Reopen vs. Motion to Reconsider: Motion to Reopen introduces new facts or changed circumstances; it must usually be filed within 90 days.
Motion to Reconsider argues the BIA mis-applied law or precedent; it must often be filed within 30 days.
Lozada Requirements: 1) Detailed retainer + deficiencies; 2) notice & opportunity for counsel to respond; 3) disciplinary complaint or explanation.
Each is independently mandatory.
Abuse of Discretion: A deferential standard—only decisions that are irrational, arbitrary, or legally impermissible are reversed.
Number Bar: Immigration rules generally allow only one motion to reopen; subsequent motions are “number-barred” unless an exception applies.

5. Conclusion

Singh v. Bondi underscores a critical procedural takeaway: When pleading ineffective assistance before the BIA, immigrants must dot every “i” and cross every “t” in the Lozada trilogy. The Seventh Circuit’s refusal to bend those requirements—even where postal delays and genuine hardship exist—signals to practitioners that equity never substitutes for procedure. Going forward, counsel in removal cases should:

Maintain written retainer agreements, even for limited-scope tasks;
Serve accused counsel with precise allegations and attach any responses;
File verifiable bar complaints and provide proof thereof;
Recognize that a defect in any prong dooms the motion.

In the broader legal landscape, the case neither expands nor contracts substantive asylum standards, but it fortifies procedural discipline, ensuring that the BIA’s docket remains manageable and that allegations of ineffective assistance rest on a well-documented foundation.

Prepared by: [Your Name], J.D., LL.M.
Date: