Disbarment For immigration Lawyer Who Had Immigration Issues

A foreign national who gained notoriety for practicing immigration law while himself in unlawful status has been disbarred by the Colorado Hearing Board.

Respondent, a foreign national, was suspended from the practice of law in 2009 for representing clients when he lacked lawful immigration status and employment authorization in the United States and for failing to inform clients of those circumstances. While serving his suspension, he prepared immigration documents for a former client and failed to inform the client that he was not authorized to practice law.

The story

Respondent, a citizen of India, first came to the United States in 1987. Although he had already completed a law degree in India, he earned a second law degree from Tulane University in 1989. Under a work visa, he remained in the United States and practiced law at a firm in Cleveland from 1989 until 1991. Respondent moved to Denver in 1991 and worked for a law firm here under an H1B work visa.  In that firm, he handled bankruptcy, security, and litigation matters, as well as some immigration cases. In the wake of a merger, Respondent was laid off in 1994. That autumn, he opened his own firm, the Law Office of Ravi Kanwal. During most of 1995, Respondent possessed a B-1 visitor visa. In December 1995, that authorization to remain in the United States expired. Nevertheless, he remained in the United States in violation of 8 C.F.R. section 214.1(a)(3)(ii). He married a U.S. citizen in 1999 and continued to practice law at his firm through 2009, representing clients in proceedings before the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), and the Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review.  He filed thousands of applications or petitions seeking immigration benefits for clients.

He was suspended from immigration practice for two years when the misconduct came to light.

Here, he was disbarred for continuing to practice after suspension

the presumptive sanction for Respondent’s misconduct is disbarment, and the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors provides no basis for departing from that presumption. Although Respondent had become well acquainted with disciplinary standards and rules through the case leading to his conditional admission of misconduct, he made a deliberate choice to disregard his order of suspension and to mislead his client. Given the purposeful nature of Respondent’s actions, we cannot trust that he will adhere to the Rules of Professional Conduct in the future, nor can we allow him to be a member of this selfregulating legal profession.

Our coverage of the earlier suspension is linked here. (Mike Frisch)