K. GUPTA

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 653 (BIA 2022) 	Interim Decision #4054
653
Matter of Viney K. GUPTA, Attorney
Decided November 29, 2022
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
(1) Disbarment may be appropriate where an attorney knowingly disregards a prior order
of suspension from the Board of Immigration Appeals and claims on notices of entry of
appearance that he is not subject to any order restricting his right to practice law when
he is, in fact, suspended from practice before the Board, the Immigration Courts, and
the Department of Homeland Security.
(2) While the Board will adopt the sanction proposed by the Disciplinary Counsels in this
case, the Board may deviate from a proposed sanction if the particular facts and
circumstances warrant a different result.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Pro se
FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, OFFICE OF GENERAL
COUNSEL: Paul A. Rodrigues, Disciplinary Counsel
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: 	Catherine M. O’Connell,
Disciplinary Counsel
BEFORE: 	Board Panel: 	MALPHRUS, Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge;
CREPPY and LIEBOWITZ, Appellate Immigration Judges.
MALPHRUS, Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge:
The Disciplinary Counsels for the Executive Office for Immigration
Review (“EOIR”) and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) have
filed a Joint Notice of Intent to Discipline requesting that the respondent be
disbarred from practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the
Immigration Courts, and DHS for continuing to practice law before the
Board, the Immigration Courts, and DHS while suspended. For the reasons
stated below, we will enter an order of disbarment.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 10, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit issued an order suspending the respondent from practice before that
court for 6 months, effective immediately. 	On November 6, 2019, the
Disciplinary 	Counsels 	for 	EOIR 	and 	DHS 	jointly 	petitioned 	for 	the

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 653 (BIA 2022) 	Interim Decision #4054
654
respondent’s immediate suspension from practice before the Board, the
Immigration Courts, and DHS. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.103(a)(1), (2) (2021). We
granted the petition on November 18, 2019. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.103(a)(4).
The Disciplinary Counsels for EOIR and DHS subsequently filed a Joint
Notice of Intent to Discipline, charging the respondent with being subject to
discipline under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.102(e) (2021) based on a final order of
suspension in the Ninth Circuit. 	The respondent did not respond, and we
issued a final order of discipline, suspending him from practice before the
Board, 	the 	Immigration 	Courts, 	and 	DHS, 	for 	6 	months, 	effective
November 18, 2019. 	See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.105(d) (2021) (discussing
imposition of discipline in proceedings in which a practitioner does not
respond to the Notice of Intent to Discipline). The respondent did not file a
motion for reinstatement when his suspension ended. He therefore remains
suspended pursuant to the Board’s order. 	See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.107(a), (b)
(2021) (explaining the procedures an attorney must follow to file for
reinstatement after suspension or disbarment). 1
The Disciplinary Counsels for EOIR and DHS have filed a second Joint
Notice of Intent to Discipline, charging the respondent with engaging in the
unauthorized practice of law and with knowingly, or with reckless disregard,
making false or misleading communications about his qualifications. 	See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.102(f)(1). 	They allege that despite being notified of his
suspension, the respondent continued to practice before the Board, the
Immigration Courts, and DHS.
Specifically, the Disciplinary Counsels allege that the respondent filed an
application for a benefit on behalf of a client, represented a client in
Immigration Court and then submitted what he presented as a pro se brief on
1 	The regulations provide two separate paths for reinstatement: one for attorneys whose
period of suspension has ended and a second for attorneys seeking early reinstatement or
reinstatement after disbarment. 	8 C.F.R. § 1003.107(a), (b). 	The requirements for
obtaining reinstatement after completion of a period of suspension are less stringent than
those imposed on attorneys seeking early reinstatement. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 1003.107(a),
with 8 C.F.R. §1003.107(b). The regulations state that an attorney who has completed his
or her period of suspension and who has filed a motion for reinstatement “shall” be
reinstated once the period of suspension has expired if the attorney meets the definition of
“attorney” set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1001.1(f) (2021) and the attorney has complied with the
terms of his or her suspension. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.107(a)(3). By contrast, an attorney seeking
reinstatement after disbarment or before his or her period of suspension has expired must
meet the definition of “attorney” in 8 C.F.R. § 1001.1(f) but for the suspension or
disbarment, comply with the terms of his or suspension or disbarment, and “demonstrate
by clear and convincing evidence that the practitioner possesses the moral and professional
qualifications required to appear before the Board, the Immigration Courts, or DHS, and
that the practitioner’s reinstatement will not be detrimental to the administration of justice.”
8 C.F.R. § 1003.107(b)(1), (2).

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 653 (BIA 2022) 	Interim Decision #4054
655
appeal for the same client, and filed a Notice of Entry of Appearance as
Attorney or Accredited Representative (Form G-28) in at least eight cases
before the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. 	On two of
the notices of entry of appearance, the respondent checked the box indicating
that he was not subject to any order of any court or administrative agency
disbarring, suspending, enjoining, restraining, or otherwise restricting him in
the practice of law. On the remaining forms, he did not check any box. The
respondent signed each form declaring that the information he provided was
true and correct under penalty of perjury.
The respondent has not filed a timely answer to the allegations contained
in the Notice of Intent to Discipline, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.105(c). 2
His failure to do so constitutes an admission of the allegations. 	8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.105(c)(1), (d)(1) (stating that a practitioner shall file a written answer
to the Notice of Intent to Discipline within 30 days of service and that no
further evidence with respect to the allegations need be adduced if the
practitioner fails to respond). He is also precluded from requesting a hearing
in the matter. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.105(d)(2). The facts of this case are therefore
not in dispute. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.105(d)(1). The Disciplinary Counsels have
moved for the entry of a final order of discipline, presenting proof of proper
service on the respondent. 	See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.105(d)(2) (requiring the
Government to submit proof of service of Notice of Intent to Discipline when
practitioner does not respond).
II. ANALYSIS
The Disciplinary Counsels argue that the respondent’s disbarment from
practice before the Board, the Immigration Courts, and DHS is appropriate
given 	his 	ongoing 	unauthorized 	practice 	of 	law, 	his 	knowing
misrepresentation of his qualification to practice law, and his deliberate
violation of the Board’s suspension order.
When a practitioner has been properly served with a Notice of Intent to
Discipline and fails to respond, the Board generally issues a final order
adopting the proposed disciplinary sanctions in the Notice of Intent to
Discipline. 	Id. 	However, the regulations provide that the Board is not
2 	Although the respondent emailed a “motion for reinstatement” to the Disciplinary
Counsels, the motion did not respond to any of the allegations or charges in the Notice of
Intent to Discipline or request a hearing in this matter. Because the respondent never filed
the motion with this Board, it does not constitute an answer to the Notice of Intent to
Discipline. In addition, the motion asks for a 3-month continuance. Even if we construed
the motion as a request for an extension of time to respond to the allegations, the respondent
has not presented information or evidence to establish that an extension is warranted, and
he has not filed the extension request with this Board. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.105(c)(1).

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 653 (BIA 2022) 	Interim Decision #4054
656
required to adopt the proposed sanction if doing so “would foster a tendency
toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or would otherwise
be unwarranted or not in the interests of justice.” 	Id. 	Accordingly, we are
not required to impose the sanction proposed by the Disciplinary Counsels
in this case and may deviate from it if the particular facts and circumstances
warrant a different result. 	See id.; see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.101(a) (2021)
(granting the Board the authority to impose disciplinary sanctions, including
suspension or disbarment, “if it finds it to be in the public interest to do so”);
cf. Matter of S. Salomon, 25 I&N Dec. 559, 561–62 (BIA 2011) (considering
the 	specific 	facts 	of 	the 	case 	in 	determining 	whether 	the 	proposed
disciplinary sanction would constitute a “grave injustice” under 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.103(b)(2)(iii) (2011)). 	We believe it is in the interest of justice to
independently 	evaluate 	the 	propriety 	of 	any 	recommended 	sanction,
including disbarment.
The allegations in the Notice of Intent to Discipline, which are deemed
admitted here, establish that the respondent has represented at least 10
individuals before DHS or the Board in spite of his suspension from practice
before these bodies. 3 In some cases, the respondent stated on the notices of
entry of appearance that he was not subject to any order of any court or
administrative agency disbarring, suspending, enjoining, restraining, or
otherwise restricting him in the practice of law even though he remained
suspended from practice before the Board, the Immigration Courts, and
DHS. 4 	In other instances, the respondent did not answer the question
pertaining to suspensions and therefore omitted a material fact. 	See, e.g.,
Matter of H. Kronegold, 25 I&N Dec 157, 162 (BIA 2010) (recognizing that
an 	attorney’s 	failure 	to 	notify 	Immigration 	Courts 	of 	disbarment 	on
appearance forms intentionally misled the courts and constituted a false
declaration under penalty of perjury).
Under these circumstances, we agree with the Disciplinary Counsels for
EOIR and DHS that disbarment is the appropriate sanction. 	See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.105(d)(2); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.101(a). 	Standard 8.1 of the
American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions states
that disbarment “is generally appropriate when a lawyer . . . intentionally or
knowingly violates the terms of a prior disciplinary order and such violation
3 	One notice of entry of appearance was filed the day we issued an immediate suspension
order. The respondent therefore could have filed this appearance before he received our
immediate suspension order. 	However, the respondent was on notice that disciplinary
proceedings were in progress when the Petition for Immediate Suspension was filed.
Additionally, he has not argued or established that he attempted to withdraw this entry of
appearance after it was filed. 	He is therefore presumed to have continued as the
representative in this case in violation of his suspension.
4 	The respondent was also suspended from practice before the Ninth Circuit at this time.

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 653 (BIA 2022) 	Interim Decision #4054
657
causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or
the 	profession.” 	American 	Bar 	Association, 	Center 	for 	Professional
Responsibility, Annotated Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 379
(2015). The explanatory notes accompanying Standard 8.1 further state that
disbarment “for flaunting a previous court order serves the fundamental goals
of maintaining the integrity of the court as well as protecting the public, the
primary purpose of disciplinary sanctions.” Id. at 381. These notes also point
out that generally “courts uniformly impose disbarment” on attorneys who
continue to practice while suspended because “lawyers who have violated
prior disciplinary orders exhibit a basic disrespect for the court and its
authority.” Id. at 382.
While we are not bound by the ABA Standards, we find them persuasive
on this issue. The respondent’s knowing and repeated disregard for our prior
order of suspension and his claim on notices of entry of appearance that he
was not subject to any order restricting his right to practice law when he was,
in fact, suspended from practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals,
the Immigration Courts, and DHS are serious violations that undermine the
integrity of the legal system. 	Accordingly, disbarment, rather than a lesser
sanction, is most appropriate. 5 See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.101(a) (listing sanctions
the Board may impose).
We will therefore accept the Disciplinary Counsels’ proposed discipline
and will order the respondent disbarred from practice before the Board, the
Immigration 	Courts, 	and 	DHS. 	Because 	the 	respondent 	is 	currently
suspended under our January 21, 2020, order of suspension, we will deem
his disbarment to commence immediately.
ORDER: 	The respondent is disbarred from practice before the Board
of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and the Department of
Homeland Security, effective immediately.
FURTHER ORDER: The respondent must maintain compliance with
the directives set forth in our prior order, and the respondent must notify the
Board of any further disciplinary action against him.
FURTHER ORDER: 	The contents of the order shall be made
available to the public, including at the Immigration Courts and appropriate
offices of the Department of Homeland Security.
5 	Disbarment is presumptively permanent. 	8 C.F.R. § 1003.101(a)(1); see also
DISBARMENT, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (stating that “disbarment is
typically permanent”). Further, as noted, a disbarred attorney must satisfy more stringent
requirements than an attorney who has completed his or her period of suspension if the
disbarred attorney wants to establish that he or she is entitled to reinstatement to practice
before the Board, the Immigration Courts, and DHS. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 1003.107(a),
with 8 C.F.R. § 1003.107(b).

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 653 (BIA 2022) 	Interim Decision #4054
658
FURTHER ORDER: 	The respondent may petition this Board for
reinstatement to practice before the Board, the Immigration Courts, and the
Department of Homeland Security under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.107.