Background
Sam Morris, a lawful permanent resident, faced removal proceedings after convictions for firearms offenses and embezzlement. His initial counsel conceded removability, and the Immigration Judge denied his application for cancellation of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed this decision. Morris later sought to reopen the case, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and arguing his conviction did not constitute a removable firearms offense. The Board denied his motions to reconsider and reopen, as well as the government’s motion to dismiss the proceedings.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that Morris failed to exhaust his challenge to removability in his first petition, as he did not raise the issue before the Board. Regarding his application for cancellation of removal, the court found the decision was discretionary and thus unreviewable. In the second petition, the court affirmed the Board’s denial of the ineffective assistance claim because Morris failed to provide evidence that he actually mailed the required grievance forms and letters to his former counsel and the disciplinary body. Finally, the court found the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the government’s motion to reopen and dismiss, as the government failed to explain what circumstances had changed and Morris had an extensive criminal history.
Because Morris did not exhaust his removability argument below, we cannot consider it in his first petition.
Morris v. Blanche, 26a0182p.06 (6th Cir. 2026)
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces the strict exhaustion requirements for immigration petitions and clarifies that photocopies of drafted letters without proof of mailing do not satisfy the procedural requirements for ineffective assistance claims.