Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 294 (BIA 2007) Interim Decision #3583
1 On our own motion, we amend the August 2, 2007, order in this case. The amended order
makes editorial changes consistent with our designation of the case as a precedent.
294
In re Carlo JEAN-JOSEPH, Attorney
File D2007-086
Decided as amended September 26, 20071
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Where an attorney who was suspended from practice before the Board of Immigration
Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and the Department of Homeland Security pending the
final disposition of his attorney discipline proceeding sought reinstatement because he had
been reinstated to the Florida Bar, but he had practiced before the Miami Immigration Court
while under the Board’s immediate suspension order, his motion was denied, and he was
instead suspended for 120 days, twice the recommended discipline in the Notice of Intent
To Discipline.
FOR RESPONDENT: Pro se
FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, OFFICE OF GENERAL
COUNSEL: Jennifer J. Barnes, Bar Counsel
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Eileen M. Connolly, Appellate
Counsel
BEFORE: Board Panel: HURWITZ, Acting Vice Chairman; HOLMES and HESS, Board
Members.
HOLMES, Board Member:
The respondent, who has been suspended from practice before the Board of
Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and the Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”) pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.103(a) (2007)
pending final disposition of this proceeding, has sought reinstatement to
practice. The motion is opposed by the Office of the General Counsel for the
Executive Office for Immigration Review, which initiated these proceedings.
The motion will be denied, and the respondent will be suspended for 120 days.Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 294 (BIA 2007) Interim Decision #3583
295
On February 15, 2007, the respondent was suspended from the practice of
law by the Supreme Court of Florida for 60 days. Consequently, on April 6,
2007, the Office of the General Counsel petitioned for the respondent’s
immediate suspension from practice before the Board and the Immigration
Courts. On April 12, 2007, the DHS asked that the respondent be similarly
suspended from practice before that agency. Therefore, on April 27, 2007, we
suspended the respondent from practicing before the Board, the Immigration
Courts, and the DHS pending the final disposition of this proceeding.
The respondent moves that we reinstate him to practice before the Board,
the Immigration Courts, and the DHS. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.107 (2007). He
presents evidence that he was automatically reinstated to the Florida Bar on
May 18, 2007.
The Office of the General Counsel opposes the reinstatement motion and
contends that the respondent appeared as counsel in at least five separate
proceedings before the Miami Immigration Court while he was suspended
from practice before the Immigration Courts. The Office of the General
Counsel argues that the reinstatement motion should be denied and that,
instead, the respondent should be suspended for 120 days, twice the
recommended discipline in the Notice of Intent To Discipline. The respondent
does not contest the allegations in the Notice of Intent To Discipline.
Since the recommended discipline is appropriate in light of the respondent’s
suspension from the practice of law in Florida and his practice before the
Miami Immigration Court while under the Board’s suspension order, we will
deny the reinstatement motion and honor the Government’s recommendation.
Accordingly, the respondent will be suspended from practice before the Board,
the Immigration Courts, and the DHS for a period of 120 days. As the
respondent is currently under our April 27, 2007, order of suspension, we will
deem the respondent’s suspension to have commenced on that date.
The respondent is instructed to maintain compliance with the directives set
forth in our prior order. The respondent is also instructed to notify the Board
of any further disciplinary action against him. We direct that the contents of
this notice be made available to the public, including at the Immigration Courts
and appropriate offices of the DHS.
After the suspension period expires, the respondent may again file a petition
for reinstatement to practice before the Board, the Immigration Courts, and the
DHS.
ORDER: The motion for reinstatement is denied.
FURTHER ORDER: The respondent is suspended from practice before the
Board of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and the DHS for a
period of 120 days.