From the opinion in Wroblewska v Holder, decided August 24 (emphasis added and citations omitted):
If there is a good due process challenge to Operation Durango out there, we would not know from the arguments made here. Indeed, the entire argument section of Wroblewska’s opening brief in this court included only about 500 words. The substance of her claim—apart from a conclusory suggestion that the Supreme Court’s decision in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza is distinguishable—is presented in a single paragraph ...
Attorney Baniassadi did not attempt to elaborate on this statement or to respond to any of the government’s counterarguments, because he chose not to file a reply brief.
In addition to the fact that counsel’s argument on behalf of Wroblewska is so cursory, it is also unsatisfactory because, without explanation, it relies on an argument that had been squarely foreclosed in another decision about Operation Durango that we issued one year before Wroblewska’s opening brief was filed. We said in Krasilych that a petitioner who “blithely asserts that ‘Fourth Amendment violations’ in Operation Durango were ‘widespread and egregious’” does not demonstrate a violation of the Fourth Amendment or of any other liberty. Attorney Baniassadi attempts to explain away Krasilych in a footnote, remarking that he filed Wroblewska’s notice of appeal in the agency before we issued our decision in Krasilych. This is a non sequitur, not a ground on which our prior decision can be distinguished. Attorney Baniassadi knew of Krasilych when he filed his brief and he should have confronted it. Instead, he repeated the precise mistake that we criticized in Krasilych: he blithely asserts that Operation Durango was “an egregious violation of due process rights,” but he does not explain why. It would be different if he had acknowledged our earlier decision and indicated that he was preserving a point for further review, but there is no such indication in the brief. The Supreme Court has required a showing of “egregious violations of Fourth Amendment or other liberties that might transgress notions of fundamental fairness” before the exclusionary rule will apply in immi- gration proceedings. It makes no difference that Wroblewska’s argument is styled as a due-process argument rather than one based on the Fourth Amendment. Finally, to the extent that the brief suggests that Wroblewska was entrapped, counsel misunderstands entrapment. “Entrapment refers to the use of inducements that cause a normally law- abiding person to commit a crime.” At the time that Wroblewska was caught in the sting she was com- mitting a continuing violation of the immigration laws and had no basis for applying for an adjustment of status. Operation Durango simply brought her to the attention of immigration officials.
For these reasons we must deny Wroblewska’s petition for review. We are disturbed, however, by Attorney Baniassadi’s perfunctory performance. People in Wroblewska’s position face life-changing consequences from their immigration proceedings. Because Attorney Baniassadi’s effort fell far below the minimum standards for competent representation in this court, we are requesting the Clerk of the Court to forward a copy of this opinion to the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission.
***
