Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 292 (BIA 2007) Interim Decision #3582
In re Boris A. KRIVONOS, Attorney
File D2001-130
Decided as amended September 26, 20071
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
A motion for reinstatement to practice filed by an attorney who was expelled from practice
before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and the Department of
Homeland Security as a result of his conviction for immigration-related fraud, but who was
reinstated to practice law in New York, was denied because he failed to show that he
possessed the moral and professional qualifications to be reinstated to practice and that his
reinstatement would not be detrimental to the administration of justice.
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 GRANT, Board
Members.
HURWITZ, Acting Vice Chairman:
The respondent, who has been expelled from practice before the Board of
Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and the Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”), 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, as well as by the DHS.
The motion will be denied.
On September 20, 2002, the respondent pled guilty in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of New York, to one count of conspiracy to
defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, in connection with
his handling of one or more diversity immigrant visa matters. The crime is a
1 On our own motion, we amend the December 5, 2006, order in this case. The amended
order makes editorial changes consistent with our disposition of the case as a precedent.
292Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 292 (BIA 2007) Interim Decision #3582
felony and therefore is a “serious crime” within the meaning of 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.102(h) (2006). On January 30, 2003, we issued a final order expelling
the respondent from practice. We noted that the respondent could seek
reinstatement under the appropriate circumstances.
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 (2006). As the
Office of the General Counsel argues, the regulation requires that in order to
be reinstated after expulsion, a party must wait 1 year to file the motion
and must show that he meets the definition of an attorney or representative, as
set forth at 8 C.F.R. §§ 1001.1(f) and (j) (2006). The Office of the General
Counsel and the DHS agree that the respondent meets the regulatory definition
of an attorney, in that he has been reinstated to practice law in the State of New
York and before the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. However, as the Office of the General Counsel states, in order to
be reinstated, a party also “shall have the burden of demonstrating by clear,
unequivocal, and convincing evidence that he . . . possesses the moral and
professional qualifications required to appear before the Board and the
Immigration Courts or the [DHS] . . . and that his . . . reinstatement will not be
detrimental to the administration of justice.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.107(b)(1). We
agree with the Office of the General Counsel that “immigration-related fraud
strikes at the heart of the country’s immigration laws and undermines the
integrity of the entire system,” and that despite the respondent’s remorse, given
the serious nature of his crime, he should not be reinstated at this time. The
respondent’s motion will therefore be denied.
ORDER: The motion for reinstatement is denied.
293