Matter of K-K-U-J-: BIA Restricts Reopening After Non-Lawyer Fraud

A man from Uzbekistan paid someone to help him with his removal case. That person was not a lawyer. He told the man that he did not need to appear in Immigration Court on the date of his hearing. The man followed that advice, missed the hearing, and an Immigration Judge entered an in absentia removal order against him. When he learned what had happened, he tried to reopen his case. The Immigration Judge agreed with him that he had been misled and reopened the proceedings. The Board of Immigration Appeals reversed that decision, denied his motion to reopen, and reinstated the removal order.

The BIA’s ruling in Matter of K-K-U-J-, 30 I&N Dec. 81 (BIA 2026), Interim Decision #4249, has now been designated as a precedent decision, meaning it binds all Immigration Judges in every future case involving the same issue. The rule going forward: if you were misled by someone who is not a licensed attorney, that bad advice generally does not qualify as an “exceptional circumstance” that would justify reopening an in absentia removal order under the BIA’s sua sponte authority. Sua sponte is a Latin phrase meaning “on its own motion,” and it refers to the BIA’s discretionary power to reopen a case on its own initiative rather than at the request of a party.

This is the tenth precedential immigration decision in about five weeks that shifts the law in the government’s direction, following Matter of DIJI, Matter of A-E-V-M-, Matter of S-K-E-, Matter of Kamalov, Matter of V-S-A-, Matter of A-V-O-, Matter of Cuber, Matter of Mendez Maldonado, and Matter of Borges Borsoi. This piece explains what the BIA decided, what “non-lawyer fraud” means in the immigration context, why the decision matters for people who have been victims of it, and what to do if this affects you or someone you know.

What Happened in Matter of K-K-U-J-

The respondent is a native and citizen of Uzbekistan. He was placed in removal proceedings, meaning the U.S. government began the process of trying to remove him from the United States. Rather than hire a licensed attorney, he contracted with an individual to file a request for a continuance of his proceedings. A continuance is a request to delay a court hearing to a later date.

According to the record, that individual gave the respondent bad advice. The individual told him that he did not need to appear in Immigration Court on the date assigned to him. Because of that advice, the respondent did not appear at his hearing, and the Immigration Judge entered an in absentia removal order against him. The individual also allegedly showed the respondent two different motion documents, telling him that a more detailed version was what had actually been filed with the court, when it was not.

The respondent later filed a motion to reopen his case, arguing that he had been deceived and that this constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying reopening. The Immigration Judge agreed with him. In a May 9, 2026 decision, the Immigration Judge found that the individual’s conduct was a “deliberate attempt to deceive” and that the record supported the respondent’s claim that he had been misled. The Immigration Judge reopened proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23, the regulation governing motions to reopen before Immigration Judges.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appealed. The BIA reversed. The respondent proceeded pro se, meaning without an attorney, and did not respond to DHS’s appeal brief. The Board decided the case on the record DHS presented, without the benefit of any responsive briefing from the respondent’s side.

What the BIA Decided

The BIA reached one holding: the Immigration Judge erred in finding “exceptional circumstances” warranting sua sponte reopening and rescission of the in absentia removal order, because the record did not support the respondent’s claim that a non-lawyer misled him into believing he did not need to appear.

The BIA’s reasoning rests on three interlocking arguments.

First, the Board reaffirmed that sua sponte reopening is an “extraordinary remedy reserved for truly exceptional situations,” citing Matter of G-D-, 22 I&N Dec. 1132, 1133-34 (BIA 1999), and Matter of J-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 976, 984 (BIA 1997). The BIA has long held that it will exercise this power sparingly, and that it is not a general remedy for the hardships that can come from applying strict filing rules.

Second, the Board found that the respondent’s claim of being misled was unreasonable on the facts of the record. Both of the motions for continuance in the record stated that the respondent was proceeding pro se, meaning without an attorney. Both were signed by the respondent personally, not by the individual who allegedly filed them. Neither motion contained the individual’s name or signature. And the respondent did not allege that the individual told him he was an attorney. Citing Jean Louis v. Attorney General of the United States, 914 F.3d 189, 192 (3d Cir. 2019), the BIA held that a non-lawyer’s bad advice is not an “exceptional circumstance” that would justify reopening.

Third, the BIA applied Matter of Z-R-C-N-, 29 I&N Dec. 523, 525 (BIA 2026), which holds that a respondent cannot succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim where the individual hired was not an attorney and did not hold himself out to be one. Even if the Immigration Judge had construed the respondent’s argument as an ineffective assistance claim rather than an exceptional circumstances claim, the Board reasoned, it would still fail. And even beyond that, the respondent had not complied with the procedural requirements set out in Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), the 1988 decision that governs how ineffective assistance claims must be presented.

Understanding Non-Lawyer Fraud in Immigrant Communities

Immigrant communities in the United States have been targeted for decades by people who are not licensed to practice law but who present themselves as capable of handling immigration cases. The scale of this problem is significant. The Department of Justice, state attorneys general, state bar associations, and community advocacy organizations have all documented widespread harm caused by these operators.

The most familiar version of the term in Spanish-speaking communities is notario or notario público. This is where the cultural confusion begins. In most Latin American countries, a notario público is a highly qualified legal professional, sometimes with training and authority comparable to an attorney. In the United States, a “notary public” is a person authorized to witness signatures on documents. They have no legal training and are not authorized to give legal advice or represent anyone in any court. The two words look similar in English and Spanish but refer to completely different roles. Immigrants who come from countries where notarios are trusted legal professionals often assume the same is true here. That assumption is wrong, and it has been the basis for countless immigration scams.

The problem is not limited to Spanish-speaking communities, and it is not limited to people who use the word notario. Non-lawyers in every immigrant community present themselves under various titles, including “immigration consultant,” consultor de inmigración, “paralegal” (misused outside of proper attorney supervision), “asesor legal,” “legal assistant,” or simply by offering to “help with the paperwork.” Central Asian, African, Southeast Asian, and Eastern European immigrant communities have all reported similar patterns. The respondent in Matter of K-K-U-J- is Uzbek. Non-lawyer fraud is not one community’s problem; it is every immigrant community’s problem.

The harm is severe. People pay significant sums of money to non-lawyers who file incorrect documents, miss deadlines, fail to appear at hearings, give bad legal advice, and sometimes disappear entirely. The victims end up with denied applications, in absentia removal orders, foreclosed forms of relief, and in many cases, physical removal from the United States. The people best positioned to protect themselves, licensed attorneys and their clients, are usually not the people being targeted. The people most vulnerable to these scams are usually the people who have the fewest resources, the least English proficiency, and the least familiarity with the U.S. legal system.

Matter of K-K-U-J- matters because it now sets a rule that closes off a key path to relief for people harmed by non-lawyer fraud. The BIA’s legal reasoning is defensible on its narrow terms. What it produces is an outcome where the people least equipped to protect themselves against these scams are also the people the doctrine now offers the least remedy to.

Why Sua Sponte Reopening Is Now Harder

The BIA has authority to reopen a removal case on its own motion, without a party asking it to. This is called sua sponte reopening. It exists under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), which gives the Board discretionary authority to reopen or reconsider any case in which it has rendered a decision. Immigration Judges have parallel authority under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1).

Since at least the 1990s, the BIA has held that sua sponte reopening is not a general safety valve for hardship. It is an “extraordinary remedy reserved for truly exceptional situations.” The Board has repeatedly said it uses this power “sparingly.” What qualifies as “truly exceptional” has been developed case by case over decades. It is a demanding standard.

Before Matter of K-K-U-J-, some Immigration Judges and Board members had been willing to treat a well-documented deception by a non-lawyer as an exceptional circumstance. The Immigration Judge in Ms. Borges Borsoi’s case in Massachusetts, and the Immigration Judge in this case, were both prepared to grant reopening based on the record before them. The BIA’s new precedent closes that door in cases where the record does not strongly show that the non-lawyer either held himself out as an attorney or actively deceived the respondent in ways the respondent could not reasonably have detected.

The practical consequence is that if you are a victim of non-lawyer fraud and you want to reopen your case, sua sponte reopening is now a very narrow pathway. The Board will look at the specific record. If the documents that were filed on your behalf named you as pro se, were signed by you personally, and did not carry the non-lawyer’s name, the BIA is likely to conclude that your belief that you were represented by a lawyer was “unreasonable.” This is true even if you cannot read English well enough to understand what those documents said.

The Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Path Rarely Works

Ineffective assistance of counsel is a legal claim that your attorney performed so poorly that it violated your constitutional right to due process. In immigration cases, ineffective assistance can sometimes be grounds to reopen a case where your lawyer’s failures caused the outcome. The framework for these claims comes from Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), a 1988 BIA decision that has governed ineffective assistance claims for nearly four decades.

Under Matter of Lozada, an ineffective assistance claim requires three things. The respondent must submit an affidavit describing the agreement with prior counsel, including what services were promised. The respondent must inform the former counsel of the allegations against them and give them an opportunity to respond. And the respondent must state whether a complaint has been filed with the appropriate disciplinary authority, typically the state bar. These are known as the Matter of Lozada requirements. They are procedurally demanding, and many pro se respondents cannot meet them without help from a licensed attorney.

Even before Matter of K-K-U-J-, the BIA had held in Matter of Z-R-C-N-, 29 I&N Dec. 523 (BIA 2026), that an ineffective assistance claim cannot succeed where the person hired was not an attorney and did not hold himself out as one. So even if you can prove that the non-lawyer you paid gave you terrible advice, you have a hurdle to clear at the threshold: was the person actually an attorney, or did they actively represent themselves as one? If the answer is no on both counts, the claim fails before it starts. That was the situation in Matter of K-K-U-J-. The respondent did not allege that the individual he hired told him he was an attorney, so the ineffective assistance path was foreclosed.

Even where the person did hold themselves out as an attorney (which is itself the unauthorized practice of law and often a crime), the Matter of Lozada procedural requirements still apply. You still need the affidavit, the notice to the former counsel, and the disciplinary complaint or an explanation of why one was not filed. For someone who is pro se, has limited English proficiency, and is scrambling to reopen a case after a removal order, this is a very tall order.

Pro Se, Unbriefed, and Now Binding

There is a structural feature of Matter of K-K-U-J- worth naming, because it will shape how attorneys argue this precedent going forward.

The respondent in Matter of K-K-U-J- proceeded pro se on appeal to the BIA. He did not respond to DHS’s appeal brief. The Board issued its precedent decision without any responsive briefing from the respondent’s side. DHS presented its opening arguments, the respondent did not oppose, and the Board decided the case on that record. The precedent that now controls every future motion to reopen in this posture was developed on a record where the person most affected by the ruling was unrepresented and silent.

This is the second recent BIA precedent developed on this kind of one-sided record, following Matter of Kamalov earlier this month. Federal circuit courts almost never issue precedential decisions in cases where only one side briefed. Circuits routinely appoint counsel for pro se parties or solicit outside briefing when important legal questions arise. The BIA has mechanisms to solicit outside briefing in cases raising important legal questions. Those mechanisms were not used here.

For practitioners, the practical implications are two.

First, when Matter of K-K-U-J- is applied against your client, there is room to distinguish the record. The pro se, unbriefed procedural posture is a legitimate ground for arguing that the decision’s analysis was shaped by a one-sided record, and that in a case with adversarial briefing, additional arguments and framings would emerge. This is a fair argument in Immigration Court and in federal court on petition for review.

Second, the concern is not academic. The doctrinal framework in Matter of K-K-U-J- was shaped by DHS’s arguments and by the Board’s own analysis, without the pushback that would come from a represented and responsive party. Every DHS argument went unrebutted. Every framing DHS offered went uncontested. Practitioners applying this precedent in cases with a different record, particularly cases where the non-lawyer did more to conceal their status or actively hold themselves out as an attorney, have room to argue for a different result.

What This Means for You If You Were Misled by a Non-Lawyer

If you paid someone for immigration help, that person was not a licensed attorney, and their conduct caused you to miss a hearing or file the wrong document, the following steps matter.

Contact a licensed immigration attorney immediately. Do not wait. Motions to reopen in absentia removal orders are subject to time limits, and some of the strongest arguments require prompt action. A licensed immigration attorney can assess your specific record and identify what pathways remain open.

Preserve every document. Keep every piece of paper the non-lawyer gave you, every receipt for money you paid, every text message and email, every business card, and every marketing material. If you paid in cash, write down the dates, amounts, and locations while you still remember. This documentation may be critical for a motion to reopen, for a state bar complaint, for a criminal complaint against the non-lawyer, or for a lawsuit.

Report the non-lawyer to your state attorney general and to your state bar. Every state has laws against the unauthorized practice of law, and many state attorneys general have consumer protection units that investigate immigration fraud. Reporting the non-lawyer does not undo the harm to your case, but it protects future victims and may in some circumstances strengthen your own case.

File a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC maintains a consumer complaint system for immigration services fraud. Complaints filed there can support broader enforcement actions.

Understand that under Matter of K-K-U-J-, the sua sponte reopening path has narrowed. Do not assume that showing you were deceived by a non-lawyer will be enough on its own. Work with a licensed attorney on a strategy that may include other pathways, such as federal court review, alternative forms of relief, or building a record that goes beyond what the respondent in this case put forward.

How to Spot a Non-Lawyer Passing Themselves Off as One

The best protection against non-lawyer fraud is not to hire a non-lawyer in the first place. The following signs should tell you the person you are dealing with is not a licensed attorney.

They cannot show you a state bar license. Every licensed attorney in the United States is admitted to practice in at least one state, and that admission is a matter of public record. You can verify any attorney’s license status through the state bar association’s website. If the person you are considering hiring cannot give you their state bar number and a state where they are admitted, they are not a lawyer.

They advertise as a “notario,” “consultor,” “asesor,” “immigration consultant,” or as offering “help with paperwork” rather than as an attorney or law firm. Licensed attorneys advertise as attorneys. If a service provider avoids using the words “attorney,” “lawyer,” “esquire,” or “law firm,” that avoidance is a warning sign.

They ask you to sign documents you do not understand, and they will not translate or explain them to you in a language you speak fluently. Licensed attorneys have professional obligations to explain what their clients are signing.

They tell you not to attend a hearing, court date, or interview. A licensed attorney will never tell you to skip a scheduled court appearance without confirming with the court in writing that your presence is excused.

They promise a specific outcome, guarantee approval, or claim to have special connections with immigration authorities. Licensed attorneys are ethically prohibited from guaranteeing outcomes.

They accept only cash and refuse to provide receipts. Legitimate law firms provide written engagement agreements, itemized invoices, and receipts.

They operate out of a location that is not clearly identified as a law office. Notary services, tax preparation offices, and travel agencies that also offer “immigration help” are common fronts for unauthorized practice.

What Matter of K-K-U-J- Does Not Change

Matter of K-K-U-J- is significant, but its scope has limits worth stating clearly.

The decision does not eliminate the sua sponte reopening authority itself. The BIA and Immigration Judges retain the discretion to reopen cases where the record does show truly exceptional circumstances. What Matter of K-K-U-J- does is set a high bar for what qualifies when the exceptional circumstance claimed is being misled by a non-lawyer.

The decision does not foreclose reopening on other grounds. Standard motions to reopen based on changed country conditions, ineffective assistance of counsel where the counsel was actually an attorney, or other exceptional circumstances specific to the case can still be filed and can still succeed.

The decision does not affect motions to rescind in absentia removal orders under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C), which provides specific statutory grounds for rescission where the respondent did not receive proper notice or where exceptional circumstances beyond the respondent’s control prevented appearance. Those statutory grounds are governed by their own framework.

The decision does not eliminate federal court review. If your motion to reopen is denied and you exhaust your administrative appeals, you may be able to seek review in a federal court of appeals through a petition for review. Federal circuit courts apply their own interpretive frameworks and may reach conclusions different from the BIA in some cases.

The decision does not change the underlying wrongfulness of non-lawyer fraud. The unauthorized practice of law is illegal in every state. Victims of non-lawyer fraud have remedies through state bar complaints, state attorney general complaints, FTC complaints, and in some cases civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions. Those remedies exist independent of the immigration case outcome.

What Attorneys Advising Victims of Non-Lawyer Fraud Should Do

For immigration attorneys who represent victims of non-lawyer fraud, Matter of K-K-U-J- changes the strategic calculus for motions to reopen.

Build the record with specific attention to whether the non-lawyer held himself out as an attorney. Under Matter of Z-R-C-N-, this is a threshold question for any ineffective assistance claim. Evidence that the non-lawyer used the word “attorney,” “lawyer,” or an equivalent term in any language, that the non-lawyer’s marketing materials suggested legal credentials, that the non-lawyer’s office had any indicia of a law firm, or that the non-lawyer wore attire suggesting legal status, can matter. Build affidavits from the client, family members, and other witnesses who interacted with the non-lawyer.

Where an ineffective assistance claim is viable, comply strictly with the Matter of Lozada procedural requirements. Draft the client affidavit with care. Give the former counsel proper notice. File the state bar complaint or document specifically why one has not been filed. Preserve the entire evidentiary trail.

Consider alternative pathways. Motions to rescind under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) may be available where the record shows that the respondent did not receive proper notice of the hearing. Petitions for review in federal court may be available after administrative remedies are exhausted. Prosecutorial discretion requests may be worth exploring in the current environment.

Coordinate with civil, criminal, and consumer protection counsel where the client has actionable claims against the non-lawyer. State attorney general offices sometimes have immigration fraud units. State bar unauthorized practice of law committees may investigate. Local prosecutors in some jurisdictions have prosecuted notario fraud as a crime.

Preserve the record for federal court review. When Matter of K-K-U-J- is applied to your client, the record you build at the Immigration Court and BIA stages is what a federal circuit court will examine on petition for review. Preservation matters, and the pro se, one-sided nature of the record in Matter of K-K-U-J- itself may open room for future circuit court challenges.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an "in absentia" removal order?

An in absentia removal order is a removal order that an Immigration Judge enters when a respondent fails to appear at a scheduled removal hearing. Once entered, it is a final order of removal. The respondent can be picked up and removed from the United States. To undo an in absentia removal order, the respondent has to file a motion to reopen or a motion to rescind, and the standards for granting those motions are demanding.

What is the difference between a notary public and an attorney?

In the United States, a notary public is a person authorized to witness signatures on documents. Notaries public have no legal training, cannot give legal advice, and cannot represent you in any court or before any government agency. An attorney is a person who has completed law school, passed a state bar examination, and been admitted to practice law by a state supreme court or equivalent body. Only attorneys can give you legal advice and represent you in immigration proceedings. In many Latin American countries, a notario público is a much more qualified legal professional, but that is not the case in the United States.

If I paid someone who is not a lawyer and they gave me bad advice, can I sue them?

Possibly, yes. Depending on your state, you may have civil claims for consumer fraud, breach of contract, or unauthorized practice of law. You may also be able to report the person to law enforcement for criminal prosecution. Consult with a civil attorney experienced in consumer fraud or unauthorized practice of law claims. Recovery of money paid is often possible, though it depends on the specific facts and on whether the non-lawyer has assets to satisfy a judgment.

Can I still reopen my case if I was misled by a non-lawyer?

Possibly, but the path has narrowed under Matter of K-K-U-J-. Sua sponte reopening is unlikely to succeed unless your record shows something more than that the non-lawyer gave you bad advice. Evidence that the non-lawyer held himself out as an attorney, that you could not reasonably have detected the deception, or that other exceptional circumstances apply, is critical. Consult an experienced immigration attorney immediately.

What are the Matter of Lozada requirements?

The Matter of Lozada requirements are procedural requirements for making an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in immigration court. The respondent must submit an affidavit describing the agreement with prior counsel and what services were promised. The respondent must inform the former counsel of the allegations and give them an opportunity to respond. And the respondent must state whether a complaint has been filed with the appropriate disciplinary authority (typically the state bar), or explain why one has not been filed. All three are typically required.

Where can I verify whether someone is a licensed attorney?

Every U.S. state maintains a public database of licensed attorneys through its state bar association. You can search by name or bar number to confirm whether a person is a licensed attorney and in good standing. If someone claiming to be an attorney cannot give you their state bar number and a state where they are admitted, they are not a lawyer. The American Bar Association also maintains resources for locating licensed attorneys and reporting unauthorized practice of law.

Where can I find Matter of K-K-U-J-?

Matter of K-K-U-J-, 30 I&N Dec. 81 (BIA 2026), is a precedent decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, published as Interim Decision #4249. The Board originally decided the case on August 27, 2026, and it was subsequently designated as precedent. It is available through the Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review website.

Why Novo Legal

Novo Legal Group is a bilingual, community-rooted human rights firm. Every attorney on our team is fluent in English and Spanish. We publish same-day analysis when federal decisions shift the ground under our clients, because we know our clients need to make decisions with the current state of the law in view. Our litigation team handles removal defense in immigration court, motions to reopen and rescind, appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals, petitions for review before federal courts of appeals including the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, and federal habeas corpus petitions. Matter of K-K-U-J- is exactly the kind of decision where the record built in your motion to reopen and the specific evidence of how the non-lawyer operated will determine whether your case can be reopened. If you or a family member has an in absentia removal order and was misled by a non-lawyer, contact us. We will tell you what we would do.

Related Reading