Exhibit C
EOIR Reciprocal Suspension (2019)
Includes: (1) Petition for Immediate Suspension and Notice of Intent to Discipline (January 29, 2019); (2) Order of Immediate Suspension (March 21, 2019); (3) Final Order of Sanctions (November 21, 2019).
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
In the Matter of
Disciplinary Case No.: D2018-0327
YOURY ZIANOVICH,
a.k.a. Youras Ziankovich,
Respondent.
NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISCIPLINE¹
Pursuant to the Rules and Procedures of Professional Conduct for Practitioners for the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), found at 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.103(b) and 1003.105(a), the EOIR Disciplinary Counsel initiates these summary disciplinary proceedings based on the above-named practitioner’s suspension from the practice of law in Colorado.
Statement of Charge
Respondent, having been subject to a final order of suspension, is subject to reciprocal discipline under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.102(e).
Allegations
-
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in New York on February 26, 2014. Respondent is not admitted to the practice of law in Colorado.
-
On October 31, 2018, in connection with Respondent’s practice of immigration law in Colorado, the Supreme Court of Colorado issued a final order suspending Respondent from the practice of law in Colorado for one year and one day, with three months to be served and the remainder to be stayed upon successful completion of a two-year period of probation, effective immediately. See Attachment 1 to the Petition for Immediate Suspension (certified copy of the Order).
-
The Supreme Court of Colorado found that Respondent violated the following provisions of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct:
a. Rule 1.5(a), (f), (g) – Fees;
b. Rule 1.15A(a) – General Duties of Lawyers Regarding Property of Clients and Third Parties;
c. Rule 1.16(d) – Declining or Terminating Representation; and
d. Rule 8.4(c) – Misconduct.
See Attachment 2 to the Petition for Immediate Suspension (Amended Opinion and Decision).
- To date, Respondent has not notified the EOIR or DHS Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Colorado’s order, as required under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.103(c).
Ground for Discipline of Respondent
Respondent is subject to reciprocal discipline under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.102(e) because Respondent has been suspended from the practice of law by the Supreme Court of Colorado.
Proposed Discipline
EOIR shall impose discipline on a practitioner based on another jurisdiction’s disciplinary order unless the practitioner proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that one of the exceptions to imposing reciprocal discipline applies. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.103(b)(2). The Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) has accepted the principle that identical or comparable reciprocal discipline should be imposed unless there is an affirmative showing that some other sanction is warranted.
See Matter of Kronegold, 25 I&N Dec. 157, 161, 163 n.3 (BIA 2010); Matter of Truong, 24 I&N Dec. 52, 55 (BIA 2006); Matter of Ramos, 23 I&N Dec. 843, 848 (BIA 2005); Matter of Gadda, 23 I&N Dec. 645, 649 (BIA 2003).
On that basis, the EOIR Disciplinary Counsel proposes that Respondent be suspended from practice before the Board and the Immigration Courts for three (3) months because Respondent has been suspended for three (3) months from the practice of law in Colorado. The Board’s order should be effective as of the date of the Board’s immediate suspension order.
Procedure for Filing Answer and Requesting Hearing
Answer
The EOIR Rules and Procedures of Professional Conduct for Practitioners provide that Respondent shall file with the Board a written answer to the Notice of Intent to Discipline within thirty (30) days of the date stated on the Proof of Service attached to this notice. Instructions for filing pleadings appear in the Board’s Practice Manual, Chapter 3, available online at:
http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/vll/qapracmanual/apptmtn4m.htm.
The telephone number for the Board is (703) 605-1007.
Whether filing the answer through the U.S. Postal Service (e.g., priority mail, certified mail, registered mail, return receipt requested, but not “Express Mail”) or overnight or express delivery (including U.S. Postal Service “Express Mail”), courier, hand delivery, or same-day delivery, the answer must be sent to the Board at the following address:
Attorney Discipline Coordinator
Board of Immigration Appeals
Clerk’s Office
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church, VA 22041
The Respondent must also serve a copy of the answer on counsel for the government at the following address:
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Attn: Disciplinary Counsel
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600
Falls Church, VA 22041
Contents of Answer
Respondent’s answer shall contain a statement of facts that constitute the grounds of defense and shall specifically admit or deny each allegation set forth above. Every allegation in the Notice of Intent to Discipline that is not denied in Respondent’s answer shall be deemed admitted and may be considered as proved without additional evidence. Respondent may affirmatively state special matters of defense and may submit supporting documents, including affidavits or statements, along with the answer. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.105(c) (2018).
Respondent’s attention is drawn to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.103(b)(2) (2018), concerning defenses under reciprocal disciplinary proceedings. To learn more about the procedures in these proceedings, Respondent should review 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.101–1003.106 (2018).
Request for Hearing
Respondent shall state in the answer whether Respondent requests a hearing in the matter. If no such request is made in the answer, the opportunity for a hearing will be deemed waived. In summary disciplinary proceedings, a Respondent must make a prima facie showing in the answer that there is a material issue of fact in dispute with regard to the basis for summary disciplinary proceedings or with one or more of the defenses to reciprocal discipline in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.103(b)(2) (2018). A failure to make such a showing will result in a denial of the request for a hearing, and the Board will retain jurisdiction over the case to issue a final order. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.106(a)(1) (2018).
Right to Counsel
Respondent may be represented by counsel at no expense to the government. Counsel shall file an appropriate Notice of Entry of Appearance form.
Motion to Extend Time to Answer
Respondent may request an extension of time to answer the Notice of Intent to Discipline for good cause only upon motion to the Board. Any such motion must be received by the Board no later than three (3) working days before the time to answer has expired. Any such motion shall be served by Respondent on counsel for the government at the address indicated above.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: January 29, 2019
PAUL A. RODRIGUES
Disciplinary Counsel
Executive Office for Immigration Review
U.S. Department of Justice
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
Tel. (703) 305-0470
¹ On or about January 4, 2019, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss this matter for lack of jurisdiction because the Proof of Service and postmark did not match on the original filing. EOIR Disciplinary Counsel re-filed and re-served the Notice of Intent to Discipline filed on December 21, 2018, to cure any defect in service. The substance of the Notice of Intent to Discipline is unchanged.
PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Petition for Immediate Suspension and Notice of Intent to Discipline, together with attachments, have been sent, on [1/24/19], by certified mail (Article No. 7016 3560 0000 4445 8360), postage prepaid, to:
Law Offices of Youras Ziankovich
14405 Walters Road, Ste. 808
Houston, TX 77014
and
Youras Ziankovich
Immigration Law Offices of Youras Ziankovich P.C.
One World Trade Center, Ste. 8500
New York, NY 10007
This address is the above-named practitioner’s last known address because:
A. It is the address of record in EOIR’s case management system for an immigration matter that is currently being adjudicated by EOIR.
B. It is the address on record with the New York State Bar, a jurisdiction that licensed the practitioner to practice law.¹
Copies of these documents have been delivered by FedEx to:
Ms. Catherine O’Connell
DHS Disciplinary Counsel
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
11411 East Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48214
L. Allison Minor
Program Analyst
¹ It is also the Respondent’s address on record with the Supreme Court of Colorado.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
In the Matter of: _________
Disciplinary Case No.: D2018-0327
YOURY ZIANOVICH
a.k.a. Youras Ziankovich,
Respondent.
PETITION FOR IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION
Pursuant to the Rules and Procedures of Professional Conduct for Practitioners, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.103(a)(1), the Disciplinary Counsel for the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) petitions the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) to immediately suspend the above-named practitioner.
In compliance with 8 C.F.R. § 1003.103(b)(2), attached to this petition as Attachment 1 is a certified copy of the October 31, 2018 order issued by the Supreme Court of Colorado, suspending Respondent from the practice of law in Colorado for one year and one day, with three months to be served and the remainder to be stayed upon successful completion of a two-year period of probation, effective immediately. As of the date of this petition, Respondent remains suspended from the practice of law in Colorado.
Attached as Attachment 2 is a certified copy of the June 20, 2018 Amended Opinion and Decision filed by the Supreme Court of Colorado.
Based on this petition and the attached certified copy of the suspension order, the Disciplinary Counsel requests that the Board enter an order immediately suspending Respondent from practice before the Board and the Immigration Courts.
Dated: [1/29/19]
Respectfully submitted,
PAUL A. RODRIGUES
Disciplinary Counsel
Executive Office for Immigration Review
U.S. Department of Justice
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
Tel. (703) 305-0470
Footnote 1: On or about January 4, 2019, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss this matter for lack of jurisdiction because the Proof of Service and postmark did not match on our original filing. Our office is re-filing and re-serving the Petition for Immediate Suspension filed on December 21, 2018, to cure any defect in service with the original filing. The substance of the Petition for Immediate Suspension is unchanged.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE — DECISION OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
File: D2018-0327
Date: MAR 21 2019
In re: Youry ZIANOVICH
a.k.a. Youras Ziankovich
a.k.a. Youry Ziankovich, Attorney
IN PRACTITIONER DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
PETITION FOR IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION
ON BEHALF OF EOIR: Paul A. Rodrigues, Disciplinary Counsel
ON BEHALF OF DHS: Catherine M. O’Connell, Disciplinary Counsel
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Pro se
The respondent will be immediately suspended from practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”), the Immigration Courts, and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).
On October 31, 2018, the hearing board for the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court of Colorado suspended the respondent from the practice of law in Colorado for 1 year and 1 day, with 3 months to be served and the remainder to be stayed upon successful completion of a 2-year period of probation, effective immediately (Petition for Immediate Suspension, Exh. 1).
The hearing board on June 20, 2018 issued an amended opinion (Petition for Immediate Suspension, Exh. 2). That opinion described how the respondent was admitted to practice law in New York in 2014 and is not admitted to practice law in Colorado. Id. at 3. The opinion further discussed how the respondent had moved to dismiss the case because he is not licensed in Colorado and his law practice is limited to federal immigration cases. Id. at 1. The motion was denied, and the Colorado Supreme Court dismissed the respondent’s appeal. Id. at 2; Disciplinary Counsel for EOIR “Response to Opposition to Motion for Immediate Suspension” at Exh. 1.
The hearing board opinion discussed how the respondent committed numerous disciplinary infractions concerning immigration clients (Petition for Immediate Suspension, Exh. 2 at 3–12). These included charging an unreasonable fee and committing conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Id. at 9–12. The decision of the hearing board was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Colorado on February 1, 2019 (Disciplinary Counsel for EOIR “Response to Opposition to Motion for Immediate Suspension” at 3; Exh. 2).
The Disciplinary Counsel for EOIR petitioned for the respondent’s immediate suspension from practice before the Board and the Immigration Courts on January 29, 2019, and states that the respondent remains suspended from the practice of law in Colorado as of the date of its filing.¹ The Disciplinary Counsel for DHS asks that the respondent be similarly suspended from practice before that agency. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.103(a)(1) and (4).
The respondent argues in an “Opposition to Motion for Immediate Suspension” that an immediate suspension order should not issue, and the Disciplinary Counsel for EOIR filed a response. Cf. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.103(a)(4) (order may be set aside “[u]pon good cause shown … when it appears in the interest of justice to do so”); Matter of Rosenberg, 24 I&N Dec. 744, 745 (BIA 2009).
The respondent argues that he is not subject to discipline in Colorado, as he is licensed only in New York and practices federal law (Respondent’s Opp.). His arguments have been rejected by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court of Colorado and by the Supreme Court of Colorado. The respondent notes that he is pursuing his claims in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.² However, the respondent currently remains suspended from the practice of law in Colorado. We take no position on the merits of the respondent’s challenge to the discipline proceedings in Colorado. Because the respondent is suspended from the practice of law in Colorado, we are required by regulation to suspend him from practice before the Board, the Immigration Courts, and DHS. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.103(a)(4). We will therefore grant the immediate suspension order.
ORDER: The petition is granted, and the respondent is immediately suspended from the practice of law before the Board, the Immigration Courts, and DHS. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.103(a)(4).
FURTHER ORDER: The respondent shall promptly notify, in writing, any clients with cases currently pending before the Board, the Immigration Courts, or DHS that the respondent has been suspended from practicing before these bodies.
FURTHER ORDER: The respondent shall maintain records to evidence compliance with this order.
FURTHER ORDER: The contents of this notice shall be made available to the public, including at Immigration Courts and appropriate offices of DHS.
FURTHER ORDER: The respondent may file an answer to the Notice of Intent to Discipline within 30 days.
FOR THE BOARD
¹ EOIR originally filed a petition for immediate suspension on December 21, 2018, but re-filed and re-served the document and the Notice of Intent to Discipline to cure any defect in service.
² On December 26, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s order of dismissal. Ziankovich v. Large, 745 F. App’x 800 (10th Cir. 2018). The Tenth Circuit remanded the case to the district court and expressed no opinion on the merits.
DISSENTING OPINION (MICHAEL J. CREPPY)
File: D2018-0327
Date: MAR 21 2019
DISSENTING OPINION: Michael J. Creppy
I respectfully dissent.
The attorney discipline regulations contemplate that the Board impose reciprocal discipline when a disciplinary body issues sanctions that affect an individual’s license to practice law within its jurisdiction. The respondent’s license to practice law has not been suspended or revoked. Moreover, the Colorado Supreme Court, in my view, lacks jurisdiction to discipline the respondent, whose law practice is limited to federal immigration cases, and this issue is the subject of ongoing litigation. The Disciplinary Counsel for the Executive Office for Immigration Review would have authority under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.101(a) to impose disciplinary sanctions upon finding it in the public interest to do so.
MICHAEL J. CREPPY
COVER LETTER / TRANSMITTAL (FINAL ORDER ENCLOSURE)
Youry Ziankovich
Law Office of Youras Ziankovich
14405 Walters Road, Ste. 808
Houston, TX 77014
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Office of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
Paul A. Rodrigues
Disciplinary Counsel
OGC / Executive Office for Immigration Review
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600
Falls Church, VA 22041
Re: Youry Zianovich (a.k.a. Youras Ziankovich; a.k.a. Youry Ziankevich)
D2018-0327
Date: November 21, 2019
Enclosed is a copy of the Board’s decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
/AT Enclosure
Panel Members: MICHAEL CREPPY; ELLEN LIEBOWITZ; MICHAEL BAIRD
CC: Catherine M. O’Connell, Disciplinary Counsel, USCIS/DHS, 11411 East Jefferson Ave., Detroit, MI 48214
CC: Youry Ziankovich, Immigrant Law Offices of Youras Ziankovich P.C., One World Trade Center, Suite 8500, New York, NY 10007
U.S. Department of Justice
Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
File: D2018-0327
Date: NOV 21, 2019
In re:
Youry ZIANOVICH,
a.k.a. Youras Ziankovich,
a.k.a. Youry Ziankovich,
Attorney
IN PRACTITIONER DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
FINAL ORDER OF DISCIPLINE
ON BEHALF OF EOIR:
Paul A. Rodrigues, Disciplinary Counsel
ON BEHALF OF DHS:
Catherine M. O’Connell, Disciplinary Counsel
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:
Pro se
The respondent will be suspended from practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”), the Immigration Courts, and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) for three (3) months, effective as of the date of this order.
On October 31, 2018, the hearing board for the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court of Colorado suspended the respondent from the practice of law in Colorado for one year and one day, with three months to be served and the remainder to be stayed upon successful completion of a two-year period of probation, effective immediately (Petition for Immediate Suspension, Exh. 1).
The hearing board for the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court of Colorado on June 20, 2018, issued an amended opinion (Petition for Immediate Suspension, Exh. 2). That opinion described how the respondent was admitted to practice law in New York in 2014 and is not admitted to practice law in Colorado. Id. at 3. The opinion further discussed how the respondent had moved to dismiss the case because he is not licensed in Colorado and his law practice is limited to federal immigration cases. Id. at 1. The motion was denied, and the Colorado Supreme Court dismissed the respondent’s appeal. Id. at 2; Disciplinary Counsel for the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“Disciplinary Counsel for EOIR”), “Response to Opposition to Motion for Immediate Suspension,” Exh. 1.
The hearing board opinion discussed how the respondent committed numerous disciplinary infractions concerning immigration clients (Petition for Immediate Suspension, Exh. 2 at 3–12). These included charging an unreasonable fee and committing conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Id. at 9–12. The decision of the hearing board for the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court of Colorado was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Colorado on February 1, 2019 (Disciplinary Counsel for EOIR, “Response to Opposition to Motion for Immediate Suspension,” at 3; Exh. 2).
The Disciplinary Counsel for EOIR petitioned for the respondent’s immediate suspension from practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Immigration Courts on January 29, 2019, and stated that the respondent remained suspended from the practice of law in Colorado as of the date of its filing. The Disciplinary Counsel for DHS asked that the respondent be similarly suspended from practice before that agency. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.103(a)(1) and (4) (discussing grounds for immediate suspension, including suspension by the highest court of any state).
We granted the immediate suspension order on March 21, 2019, after taking into consideration the respondent’s argument that he is not subject to discipline in Colorado, as he is licensed only in New York and practices federal law.¹ We noted that the respondent’s arguments had been rejected by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court of Colorado and by the Supreme Court of Colorado. While the respondent noted that he was then pursuing claims before the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, he remained suspended from the practice of law in Colorado, and an immediate suspension order was therefore required by regulation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.103(a)(4).
The Board’s March 21, 2019, decision provided the respondent with thirty (30) days to file an answer to the Notice of Intent to Discipline. The respondent filed an answer on April 20, 2019, and the Disciplinary Counsel for EOIR submitted a “Motion for Summary Adjudication.” The respondent thereafter filed a “Response on Motion for Summary Adjudication and Cross-Motion for Summary Adjudication.”
On May 24, 2019, we denied the respondent’s motion to set aside the Board’s March 21, 2019, immediate suspension order. We also ordered that, under the circumstances, the proceedings concerning the Notice of Intent to Discipline would be stayed until the United States District Court for the District of Colorado issued a decision in the respondent’s federal case. The parties were ordered to file supplemental briefs within thirty (30) days of the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado concerning the respondent.
On August 2, 2019, we denied a motion filed by the respondent, which apparently sought reconsideration of our May 24, 2019, order. The respondent on August 12, 2019, submitted a Notice of Appeal concerning the August 2, 2019, Board order. The appeal was rejected, as an appeal in an attorney discipline matter under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.106(c) is only appropriate upon issuance of a decision by an adjudicating official.
On September 27, 2019, the Disciplinary Counsel for EOIR filed a “Notice of Federal District Court Decision and Renewed Motion for Summary Adjudication,” which is opposed by the respondent. See Respondent’s “Response on Renewed Motion for Summary Adjudication and Cross-Motion for Summary Adjudication.” The Disciplinary Counsel for EOIR and the respondent submitted a September 18, 2019, decision of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. See Ziankovich v. Large, No. 17-cv-02039-CMA-NWY, 2019 WL 4463283 (D. Colo. Sept. 18, 2019). The decision affirmed and adopted a recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge and dismissed the respondent’s case with prejudice. Id.
¹ One Board Member issued a dissenting opinion concerning the immediate suspension order.
As the Disciplinary Counsel for EOIR argues, the respondent has not established that there is a material issue of fact in his case (Disciplinary Counsel for EOIR’s “Notice of Federal District Court Decision and Renewed Motion for Summary Adjudication” at 2–3). In particular, the respondent has not made a prima facie showing that there is a material issue of fact regarding the basis of the proceeding—his suspension in Colorado—and has not shown that any of the exceptions to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions exist in his case, particularly where the United States District Court for the District of Colorado has dismissed his federal action concerning the Colorado disciplinary proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.102(e), 1003.106(a), 1003.103(b)(2)(i)–(iii).² While the respondent expresses disagreement with the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, he has not shown that it is likely that this decision will be revisited or reversed.
The Disciplinary Counsel for EOIR’s “Notice of Federal District Court Decision and Renewed Motion for Summary Adjudication,” at 4, seeks to have the respondent’s three-month suspension effective as of the date of this order. The Disciplinary Counsel for EOIR presents evidence that the respondent has not complied with the Board’s March 21, 2019, immediate suspension order. Id., Exh. 2.
A transcript from an August 6, 2019, removal hearing in Denver, Colorado, is presented, and the subject of that hearing stated that the respondent had only told him three days earlier that he could not represent him in Immigration Court. Id., Exh. 2 at 1–2. The respondent’s client further testified that he had recently contacted the respondent about immigration paperwork received in July 2019, and the respondent instructed him to mail the paperwork to him. Id., Exh. 2 at 4–8.
Based on this evidence, we concur with the Disciplinary Counsel for EOIR that the respondent did not promptly notify clients that he had been suspended by the Board and has apparently continued to practice immigration law, despite the respondent’s arguments to the contrary. We consequently agree that the Board’s final order of suspension should be effective as of the date of this order.
ORDER
The Disciplinary Counsel for EOIR’s “Notice of Federal District Court Decision and Renewed Motion for Summary Adjudication” is granted.
FURTHER ORDER: The Board hereby suspends the respondent from practice before the Board, the Immigration Courts, and the DHS for three (3) months, effective as of the date of this order.
FURTHER ORDER: The respondent must maintain compliance with the directives set forth in our prior orders and must notify the Board of any further disciplinary action against him.
² We note that on October 7, 2019, the United States Supreme Court denied the respondent’s petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado.
FURTHER ORDER: The contents of this order shall be made available to the public, including at Immigration Courts and appropriate offices of DHS.
FURTHER ORDER: The respondent may petition this Board for reinstatement to practice before the Board, the Immigration Courts, and DHS under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.107.