Background
Sam Morris, a lawful permanent resident, was placed in 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. Morris later sought to reopen the case, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and arguing his conviction was not a removable firearms offense. The Board denied his motions to reopen and reconsider, and also denied a government motion to dismiss the proceedings.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that Morris failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding his removability, barring review of that claim. Regarding his motion for cancellation of removal, the court found the decision was discretionary and thus unreviewable. On the ineffective assistance claim, the court found Morris failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada because he provided no proof that his complaint was actually mailed or that his former counsel was notified. Finally, the court found the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the government’s motion to reopen and dismiss because the government failed to explain what circumstances had changed.
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 strict exhaustion requirements for immigration challenges and clarifies that photocopies of unmailed letters do not satisfy the proof requirements for ineffective assistance claims under Matter of Lozada.