The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has suspended attorney Ashley Briana Cuber from practicing law before the Board, the Immigration Courts, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for one year. This decision follows a prior suspension by the Washington State Bar Association. The ruling, made on September 18, 2026, is significant as it underscores the BIA's adherence to reciprocal discipline, which aims to maintain professional standards among attorneys practicing in immigration law.
The suspension is effective from July 25, 2025, the date the BIA issued an immediate suspension order based on the Washington Bar's interim suspension. Cuber, who represented herself in the proceedings, did not respond to the allegations against her, leading the BIA to adopt the proposed sanction without further deliberation.
The parties involved in this case include Ashley Briana Cuber, the respondent, who is facing disciplinary action, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review, represented by Acting Disciplinary Counsel Nathan S. Henriksen, along with Disciplinary Counsel Catherine M. O’Connell for DHS. The case arose after the Washington State Bar Association suspended Cuber from practicing law due to undisclosed reasons, prompting the BIA to take action based on this disciplinary measure.
The dispute began when the Washington State Bar Association filed a petition for interim suspension against Cuber, which was granted on June 26, 2025. Following this, the BIA received a Joint Petition for Immediate Suspension from the Disciplinary Counsels of both the Executive Office for Immigration Review and DHS. The BIA granted this petition on July 25, 2025, citing regulations that allow for immediate suspension in cases of reciprocal discipline.
On June 9, 2026, the Disciplinary Counsels filed an Amended Joint Notice of Intent to Discipline, acknowledging that the previous notice was premature since the Washington suspension order was not final at that time. The final order from the Washington Supreme Court, which formally suspended Cuber for one year, was issued on May 7, 2026. This final order allowed the BIA to proceed with the disciplinary action against Cuber.
The BIA ruled that Cuber's failure to respond to the allegations in the Amended Joint Notice of Intent to Discipline constituted an admission of those allegations. As a result, the BIA was compelled to adopt the proposed sanction of a one-year suspension. The ruling stated, "In the absence of a timely answer to the Notice of Intent to Discipline, the Board generally does not diverge from the sanction recommended in a Notice of Intent to Discipline that is based on reciprocal discipline."
Chief Appellate Immigration Judge Malphrus, along with Appellate Immigration Judges Mullane and Creppy, presided over the case. The judges emphasized the importance of maintaining consistent disciplinary standards among attorneys practicing immigration law, particularly those who may represent vulnerable populations seeking relief in immigration courts.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Cuber herself. It serves as a reminder to all attorneys practicing in immigration law about the consequences of failing to adhere to professional standards. The BIA's decision reinforces the principle of reciprocal discipline, which aims to ensure that attorneys who are disciplined in one jurisdiction face similar consequences in federal immigration proceedings.
Going forward, this case may influence how other disciplinary actions are handled within the immigration system. Attorneys may be more cautious in their practice to avoid similar repercussions. The ruling also highlights the importance of timely responses to disciplinary notices, as failing to respond can lead to automatic admissions of the allegations.
As for what’s next, Cuber may petition the BIA for reinstatement to practice law before the Board, the Immigration Courts, and DHS after serving her suspension. The BIA has outlined the process for reinstatement under the relevant regulations, allowing for a potential return to practice if Cuber can demonstrate compliance with the directives set forth in the order.