Eleventh Circuit Holds That an EOIR Disciplinary Complaint Can Satisfy Lozada

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently issued an important decision addressing ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims in immigration proceedings. In Pasqual-Andres v. U.S. Attorney General decided on August 4, 2026, the court held that a complaint filed with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) Disciplinary Counsel may satisfy the third procedural requirement set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). The court rejected the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) conclusion that the noncitizen also had to file a complaint with the former attorney’s state bar.

The decision applies within the Eleventh Circuit, which includes Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. It is especially significant for individuals seeking to reopen immigration proceedings based on alleged ineffective assistance by prior counsel.

Background on Lozada Requirements

A noncitizen seeking reopening based on ineffective assistance of counsel generally must comply with the procedural framework established in Matter of Lozada. Among other requirements, the person must provide an affidavit describing the agreement with former counsel and the alleged deficient representation, notify former counsel of the allegations, and state whether a complaint has been filed with the appropriate disciplinary authorities. If no complaint has been filed, the person ordinarily must explain why, despite such a major failure by former counsel, the person cannot inform the disciplinary authorities so the attorney cannot act in that manner again.

The third requirement is often described as the “bar complaint” requirement. However, Lozada itself refers more broadly to a complaint filed with the “appropriate disciplinary authorities.” The BIA has used these procedural requirements to screen ineffective-assistance claims and to discourage claims brought merely to delay removal proceedings.

EOIR Complaint Was Sufficient

In Pasqual-Andres, the individual alleged that his former attorney had prepared and filed an inadequate appeal brief before the BIA without his involvement. The brief did not address certain adverse findings made by the immigration judge and was filed as though it were a pro se submission. When the individual later sought reopening based on ineffective assistance, he submitted evidence that he had filed a disciplinary complaint with EOIR concerning the attorney’s conduct.

The BIA denied reopening because the individual had not also filed a complaint with the attorney’s state bar. The BIA reasoned that EOIR discipline was limited to practice before EOIR and did not provide the same authority as a state bar to discipline an attorney in other settings.

The Eleventh Circuit disagreed. The court explained that neither Lozada nor published BIA or Eleventh Circuit precedent makes a state bar the sole disciplinary authority that can satisfy the third Lozada requirement. EOIR is an appropriate authority to receive a complaint concerning ethical or legal violations that occurred in immigration court proceedings.

The court noted that EOIR’s modern disciplinary framework permits significant sanctions, including suspension or disbarment from practice before the immigration courts and the BIA. EOIR also may coordinate with state and federal disciplinary authorities and is required to report non-private sanctions to the jurisdictions in which a practitioner is licensed. In light of these authorities, the court held that an EOIR complaint satisfies Lozada’s third requirement and that the BIA abused its discretion by requiring a separate state-bar complaint.

Substantial Compliance Also Is Enough in the Eleventh Circuit

The decision includes a second important holding. The Eleventh Circuit, for the first time, held that substantial compliance with Lozada’s procedural requirements is sufficient. The court joined the majority of circuits that do not require rigid, formulaic adherence where the purposes of the requirements have been served.

Even if an EOIR complaint were not deemed complete compliance with the third Lozada requirement, the court found that it would constitute substantial compliance. An EOIR complaint can deter meritless ineffective-assistance claims, put the attorney’s conduct before an appropriate disciplinary system, assist in identifying patterns of misconduct, and provide a mechanism for disciplinary review. These functions advance the central purposes underlying Lozada.

The court granted the petition for review and vacated the BIA’s order denying the motion to reopen. The court did not decide whether the underlying ineffective-assistance claim ultimately warranted reopening on the merits.

Practical Considerations

This decision is helpful authority for individuals in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia whose ineffective-assistance claims arise from representation before the immigration courts or the BIA. It confirms that an EOIR disciplinary complaint is not merely a substitute of lesser value for a state-bar complaint. Under Pasqual-Andres, it is an appropriate disciplinary complaint for purposes of Lozada’s third requirement.

Nevertheless, individuals and counsel should not assume that filing an EOIR complaint excuses all other Lozadaobligations. A motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance must still address the agreement with prior counsel, notice to prior counsel, timeliness, prejudice, and the particular procedural and factual circumstances of the case. A complaint to EOIR also may be advisable alongside a state-bar complaint in appropriate cases, particularly when the alleged misconduct may implicate professional obligations beyond immigration-court practice. The appropriate strategy will depend on the facts, the attorney’s licensing jurisdiction, and the relief sought.

Conclusion

Pasqual-Andres clarifies that, in the Eleventh Circuit, a noncitizen need not file a state-bar complaint specifically in order to meet Lozada’s third requirement when an EOIR disciplinary complaint has been filed. The ruling recognizes EOIR’s authority to investigate and discipline misconduct in immigration practice and provides a more practical path for individuals seeking reopening based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Anyone considering such a motion should obtain individualized legal advice promptly, as motions to reopen are subject to strict deadlines and case-specific requirements.

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved