Background
Josselyn Gabriela Rodriguez-Solis entered the United States in 2010 and has been in removal proceedings for over a decade. Her attorney of more than ten years moved to withdraw just four weeks before a scheduled merits hearing. Rodriguez-Solis requested a continuance to find new counsel, but the immigration judge denied the request, noting the case had been pending for eleven years. Rodriguez-Solis proceeded pro se, testified about her fear of returning to Honduras, and was ultimately ordered removed after the immigration judge found her testimony not credible.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that the immigration judge violated Rodriguez-Solis’s statutory right to counsel under Section twelve hundred twenty-nine A, subsection B, paragraph four, subsection A of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court found that the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in concluding Rodriguez-Solis had sufficient time to retain counsel. The court noted that a new lawyer would need time to review and update filings, address concerns about the proposed social group, and prepare for testimony, especially given the need for a sign language interpreter. The court emphasized that the statutory right is not conditional on proving a need for counsel, but is a privilege of choice.
We hold the IJ’s actions violated Rodriguez-Solis’s statutory right to counsel and remand to the Board of Immigration Appeals to consider in the first instance whether that violation prejudiced her.
Opinion at 2
The dissent
What it means going forward
The decision requires immigration judges to ensure noncitizens have a reasonable and realistic period to obtain counsel when their attorney withdraws. It mandates that the Board of Immigration Appeals consider prejudice in cases where a statutory right to counsel is violated, rather than assuming prejudice is irrelevant.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download