Attorney Sarah Clemment, of Madison, Wisconsin, is an attorney licensed in the State of Wisconsin since 2000.

In December of 2005, Clemment agreed to represent a client on an asylum application with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Following an asylum interview, the client was placed in removal proceedings before the U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review (“Immigration Court”). The Immigration Court scheduled a final hearing to consider the client’s asylum application, as well as her removability from the United States, on January 30, 2008.

On January 28, 2008, the client came to Clemment’s office to discuss her final hearing. According to the client, Clemment told her the date of the final hearing was January 31, 2008 and that Clemment would not attend the hearing without being paid outstanding attorneys fees. While Clemment denies she told the client the hearing was on January 31, 2008, the client paid the fees, and on January 31, 2008, Clemment and her client traveled together to Chicago, Ilinois to appear before an immigration judge. Upon arrival, however, Clemment and the client learned that the scheduled hearing took place on January 30, 2008, and the immigration judge entered an in absentia order denying asylum, denying withholding of removal, and ordering the client’s deportation to her home country.

In response to the Immigration Court’s order, Clemment filed a Motion to Reopen Proceedings with the Immigration Court. In her motion, Clemment stated that she had advised her client that she would not be able to represent her at the January 30, 2008 hearing. In addition, Clemment made statements in her motion that implied that the client had appeared at the hearing on January 31, 2008 on the wrong date and without her attorney. Clemment did not submit a filing fee with her Motion to Reopen, nor did she file any affidavits or supporting evidence as required by the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”). Because Clemment had acknowledged that the client had received notice of the January 30, 2008 hearing, and because no evidence supported a finding that the client had been misinformed of the hearing date, the court denied the Motion to Reopen.

Thereafter, Clemment filed a Notice of Appeal with the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (“BIA.”). In her Notice of Appeal, Clemment did not file a required Notice of Entry of Appearance form, nor did Clemment submit a brief, notwithstanding written notice from BIA that failure to file a written brief may result in the summary dismissal of the appeal.