Pasqual-Andres v. Attorney General holds that a complaint to EOIR, not only a state bar complaint, can satisfy Matter of Lozada.
.svg)
The decision. In Pasqual-Andres v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 22-12848 (11th Cir. Aug. 4, 2026), the Eleventh Circuit held that a complaint filed with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) satisfies the disciplinary-complaint requirement of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). A young man from Guatemala reported his former lawyer to EOIR's disciplinary counsel rather than to the state bar, and the court held that he had done enough. The Board of Immigration Appeals had denied his motion to reopen on the ground that only a state bar complaint would count. The Eleventh Circuit held that the Board abused its discretion, granted the petition for review, and vacated the denial.
What it means. To reopen a case for a lawyer's ineffective assistance, Lozada requires the client to report the lawyer to the "appropriate disciplinary authorities" or explain why no complaint was filed. The Board had treated the state bar as the only acceptable place to file. The court rejected that reading. Nothing in Lozada names the state bar as the sole authority, and a 2009 rule gave EOIR the power to suspend or bar an attorney from every immigration court in the country. Because an EOIR complaint serves the same purposes the requirement was built for, deterring meritless claims and policing the immigration bar, it satisfies the rule. The court held that this was full compliance, and it added that the complaint was at least substantial compliance as well; two judges wrote separately, agreeing on the result but disagreeing on which of those grounds the court needed.
For the Eleventh Circuit. Pasqual-Andres now controls cases in the Eleventh Circuit's immigration courts, in Miami, Krome, Orlando, Atlanta, and Stewart. A client there who was failed by prior counsel can meet Lozada's third requirement with an EOIR complaint, and the Board can no longer reject the motion for want of a state bar filing. Counsel should still keep the record clean: file promptly, attach the complaint, and preserve proof of what was submitted, because the requirement is easy to meet and expensive to lose.
The limits. Pasqual-Andres binds only the Eleventh Circuit; other circuits have not adopted it, and the Board may still insist on a state bar complaint elsewhere. The Fifth and Seventh Circuits continue to demand strict compliance with Lozada, and the court's separate writings leave the meaning of "substantial compliance" unsettled. The decision reopens the proceedings only; it does not decide the underlying asylum, withholding, or Convention Against Torture claims, which return to the Board.
Case Law Watch is Emeriti Law's weekly note on decisions that matter for immigration appeals. Our appellate practice briefs these questions before the Board of Immigration Appeals. This note is general information, not legal advice.
.png)
