The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has denied a petition for reinstatement filed by Sarah J. M. Jones, an attorney who had been indefinitely suspended from practicing law before the Board, Immigration Courts, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) since 2011. The court ruled that Jones does not meet the regulatory definition of an attorney due to her prior disciplinary actions and unauthorized practice during her suspension. This decision affects Jones' ability to practice law in immigration matters and sets a precedent regarding the compliance of attorneys with disciplinary orders.
Jones was suspended after she resigned from the Ninth Circuit bar while disciplinary proceedings were pending against her. The BIA's ruling highlights the importance of adherence to disciplinary orders and the consequences of practicing law without proper authorization.
Background
Sarah J. M. Jones was indefinitely suspended from practicing law on August 25, 2011, after the Ninth Circuit accepted her resignation amid ongoing disciplinary proceedings. Following her resignation, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and DHS sought her immediate suspension from practicing before their respective courts. The BIA granted these requests, leading to her indefinite suspension.
On May 12, 2026, Jones filed a petition seeking reinstatement to practice before the BIA, Immigration Courts, and DHS. She claimed that she had not received the suspension order because she had moved without leaving a forwarding address. Jones stated that she had been disbarred in Illinois but had since been reinstated and believed she met the definition of an attorney under immigration regulations.
The Ruling
The BIA ruled against Jones' petition for reinstatement, stating, “An individual who is eligible to practice law and is a member in good standing in one jurisdiction does not meet the regulatory definition of ‘attorney’ if he or she is barred from or otherwise restricted in practicing law in another jurisdiction.” The ruling was issued by a panel of judges including Chief Appellate Immigration Judge Malphrus and Appellate Immigration Judges Mullane and Chaban.
The court emphasized that Jones had not demonstrated compliance with the definition of an attorney as outlined in immigration regulations. Specifically, the BIA noted that Jones was barred from practicing law in the Ninth Circuit, which disqualified her from being considered an attorney under the relevant regulations. Furthermore, the BIA pointed out that Jones had practiced law during her indefinite suspension by obtaining an EOIR identification number and representing clients in Immigration Courts.
Impact
This decision has significant implications for attorneys facing disciplinary actions. It reinforces the necessity for legal professionals to comply with suspension orders and the consequences of failing to do so. The ruling serves as a reminder that practicing law without proper authorization can lead to further disciplinary actions and denial of reinstatement.
Jones' case illustrates the importance of maintaining good standing in all jurisdictions where an attorney is licensed. The BIA's decision may deter other attorneys from attempting to practice law while under suspension, as it clearly outlines the repercussions of such actions.
What's Next
Jones may have the option to appeal this decision, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There is no indication of any related cases pending at this time.