RAICES Bulletin: BIA Clarifies What to Include with a "Lozada" Motion

By RAICES Public Affairs Director Javier Hidalgo, Esq.

TL;DR The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ruled that individuals filing a Lozada motion for ineffective assistance of counsel must now submit both a copy of the substantive bar complaint and proof of its filing, or provide a valid explanation why none was filed. This evidentiary requirement signals it will be significantly harder for noncitizens prejudiced by incompetent counsel to reopen their immigration cases successfully.

WHAT TO KNOW

• Issue: In its July 15, 2026 decision in Matter of L-R-M-C- & V-A-M-M- (BIA 2026), the BIA clarified the evidentiary requirements for a Lozada motion (a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel). To satisfy the requirement of showing whether a disciplinary complaint was filed, noncitizens must now submit both a copy of the substantive bar complaint and proof of its filing. If no complaint was filed, the noncitizen must provide a valid explanation why. 

• Rationale: The BIA justifies this new requirement by citing a need to standardize evidence and a concern over the "danger of collusion" between prior and current attorneys to secure a "second bite of the apple" for noncitizens. Relying on the Eighth Circuit's decision in Irias v. Bondi, the BIA argues that proving the complaint's substance and submission is essential to identify attorney misconduct and preserve system integrity. Furthermore, this documentation allows the BIA to verify that the facts in the Lozada motion match those in the bar complaint. The BIA does not discuss what evidence it previously accepted when granting Lozada motions.  

• RAICES Impact: RAICES representatives must navigate these stricter requirements when filing Lozada motions. Practitioners should be aware that the contents of bar complaints will now be shared with the immigration court, which can apply its own disciplinary measures against attorneys. Despite this, advocates must prioritize client interests and not be deterred from filing meritorious claims. Although the BIA strongly favors the filing of a bar complaint, practitioners should remember that the standard still allows for a valid explanation in lieu of filing one.  

• Community Impact: This ruling makes it harder for noncitizens prejudiced by ineffective counsel to reopen their cases and adjudicate meritorious claims. Additionally, filing a bar complaint can waive the attorney-client privilege between a noncitizen and their former attorney. In an increasingly anti-immigrant climate, these stringent requirements will likely have a chilling effect.  

• Related Legal Battles: This decision stems from a Tenth Circuit remand that vacated a previous BIA denial due to unspecified evidentiary rules. The ruling also aligns with recent circuit court decisions, like the Eighth Circuit's Irias v. Bondi, demanding strict rather than substantial compliance with Lozada requirements.     

• Broader Immigration Strategy: These technical procedural barriers align with a broader administrative agenda to fast-track removals and restrict asylum access. These expanded Lozada evidentiary requirements protect flawed removal orders from review, limit due process for victims of incompetent counsel, and ultimately reduce the number of asylum seekers who can successfully reopen their cases to secure safety.