In Re: Yung H. Hsu ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • 10-90074-am
    In Re: Yung H. Hsu
    l O- 90 0 74 -a
    I n re Yun g H. Hsu , a l so kn o wn
    a s Al l en Y. Hs u
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
    SUMMARY ORDER
    RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
    ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL
    RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32 . 1 . 1 . WHEN CITING
    A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE
    FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER") .
    A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT
    REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
    At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for
    the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United
    States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on
    the 6 th day of January, two thousand twelve.
    PRESENT:
    Jose A. Cabranes,
    Ro b e rt D. Sack,
    Richard C. Wesley,
    Circuit Judges.
    In re Yun g H. Hs u,                                            10-90074-am
    a l so kn o wn as Allen Y. Hsu,
    AMENDED ORDER OF
    GRIEVANCE PANEL 1
    Att o rne y .
    FOR AL LEN Y. HSU:                       All e n Y. Hs u, Es q., New York , New York .
    I Th e   a me ndment is lim i t e d t o th e i n se rti o n of th is foo tn o te
    a nd foo tn o t e 4, a nd th e r en umb e r ing of th e o th e r foo tn o t es .
    1
    2        UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
    3   DECREED that Yung H. Hsu, also known as Allen Y. Hsu,     is publicly
    4   reprimanded for the misconduct described below and directed to
    5   comply with the continuing legal education ("CLE")     and co-counsel
    6   requirements specified in this order.2
    7        By order filed ln July 2010, this panel directed Hsu to show
    8   cause why he should not be removed from the bar of this Court, or
    9   subject to other disciplinary or corrective measures, based on
    10   his filing of deficient briefs in six cases and the assertion by
    11   a bankruptcy trustee that he had engaged in sanctionable conduct
    12   in a bankruptcy proceeding.     In his response to that order, Hsu
    13   apologized for his poor briefing,     stated that his briefing errors
    14   were inadvertent, acknowledged that he needs coaching in
    15   brief-writing, and explained that the alleged sanctionable
    16   conduct in the bankruptcy proceeding had been committed by his
    17   client without his knowledge.
    18        For present purposes, we accept Hsu's explanation concerning
    19   the allegation against him in the bankruptcy proceeding.      We also
    20   accept that Hsu recognizes the need for change in his practice
    2 Although Hsu referred to himself as Yung H. Hsu in his
    case filings in this Court, his name is recorded as Allen Y. Hsu
    in both the New York State Unified Court System's Attorney
    Directory and this Court's Attorney Admissions Database.   In his
    response to our July 2010 order, he refers to himself as "Allen
    Y. Hsu [f]ormerly known as Yung H. Hsu."
    2
    1   and is remorseful for his misconduct.        However, the deficiencies
    2   in his briefs concerned elementary principles of immigration law,
    3   administrative exhaustion, appellate waiver, and appellate
    4   brief-writing.    Hsu's conclusory explanation, although
    5   appropriately contrite, falls far short of providing a
    6   satisfactory account of, or excuse for,       his many serious
    7   mistakes.
    8        Additionally, although our July 2010 order drew Hsu's
    9   attention to the fact that he had never filed a response to the
    10   Government's De cember 2009 motion to dismiss in Zhu Feng Zheng v.
    11   Holder,    09-2786-am, Hsu neither corrected nor explained that
    12   omission.    The Government's motion was eventually granted in
    13   August 2011, without any response having been filed.         See Zhu
    14   Feng Zheng, 09-2786-am, order filed Aug. 8, 2011.
    15        Finally, we note that Hsu failed to comply with several
    16   explicit instructions in our July 2010 order.         He failed to
    17   provide:    (a) a declarat ion made under penalty of perj ury;      (b)   a
    18   statement of whether he has been disbarred, suspended,
    19   reprimanded, or otherwise disciplined by any bar or court and,                if
    20   so, a copy of each document imposing such a disciplinary measure;
    21   (c) a statement of whether he has ever been ordered by any court
    22   or bar disciplinary authority to show cause why he should not be
    23   disciplined and, if so, a copy of each such order, and any
    24   response to each such order;     (d) an explanation for all of the
    25   conduct discussed in this order,        including a discussion of
    3
    1   whether his clients were prejudiced in any way by that conduct;
    2   or   (e)   a copy of the sanction motion that was filed in the Truong
    3   case, all supporting and responding pleadings relating to that
    4   motion,    and all documents memorializing the agreement between Hsu
    5   and the trustee settling the sanction claims.
    6          Hsu's deficient briefing, his explanation for that briefing,
    7   and the other deficiencies noted above leave us with little
    8   confidence that, as things now stand, he will be able to conform
    9   to expected professional norms in the future.      Thus,   upon due
    10   consideration of the matters described above,     it is hereby
    11   ORDERED that Hsu is PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED for the misconduct
    12   described above and DIRECTED to:
    13          (a) attend, within one year of the filing date of this
    14          order, CLE programs on (i) immigration law, (ii)
    15          federal appellate practice, and (iii) appellate brief
    16          writing.  Hsu must certify his completion of the
    17          required CLE programs by sworn statement filed with
    18          this panel within seven days after the end of the one­
    19          year period.  Counsel to the Grievance Panel is
    20          authorized to modify this deadline, on Hsu's motion.
    21          (b) not file in this Court, for a period of two years
    22          (commencing twenty-eight days from the filing date of
    23          this order), any further briefs, motions or other
    24          papers unless those documents are co-signed by another
    25          member of this Court's bar who has entered an
    26          appearance as co-counsel in the case and meets the
    27          other requirements noted in the footnote appearing
    28          below.3 If Hsu is unable to comply with this directive
    3 Before entering an appearance as co-counsel to Hsu in any
    case, proposed co-counsel must certify, in a sworn written
    submission to this panel under the present docket number, that he
    or she (i) has not been disciplined by this or any other Court or
    disciplinary authority in the past five years; (ii) currently is
    4
    1        at any point during the pendency of a case in this
    2        Court, he must move to withdraw as counsel in that
    3        case.
    4        (c) attach a copy of this order to any future request for
    5        renewal of his admission to the bar of this Court with a
    6        sworn declaration detailing his full compliance with the
    7        above-noted directives.
    8
    9   See In re Zhang,    376 Fed. Appx.   104,   108-09   (2d Cir. 2010)
    10   (imposing CLE and co-counsel requirements).          The preceding
    11   directives are intended to be remedial and prophylactic, not
    12   punitive.   However,   Hsu is advised that any future failure to
    13   comply with any rule or order of this Court may result in
    14   additional sanctions,    including suspension or disbarment.
    15        The text of this panel's July 2010 order is appended to,         and
    16   deemed part of,    the present order for the following disclosure
    17   purposes.   Hsu must disclose this order to all clients in cases
    18   currently pending in this Court and to all courts and bars of
    19   which he is currently a member,      and as required by any bar or
    20   court rule or order.     Furthermore,    the Clerk of Court is directed
    21   to release this order to the public by posting it on this Court's
    22   web site and providing copies to members of the public in the
    23   same manner as all other unpublished decisions of this Court, and
    24   to serve a copy on Hsu,    this Court's Committee on Admissions and
    not the subject of any such disciplinary proceedings; (iii) has
    read a copy of this order; and (iv) accepts full responsibility
    for all documents filed by Hsu in the case.  An attorney unable
    to make the certifications described in clauses (i) and (ii) of
    the preceding sentence may seek a waiver of those requirements
    from this panel by motion filed under this docket number.
    5
    1   Grievances, the attorney disciplinary committee for the New York
    2   State Appellate Division, First Department, and all other courts
    3   and jurisdictions to which this Court distributes disciplinary
    4   decisions in the ordinary course. 4
    5
    6                             FOR THE COURT:
    7                             Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13                             By:    Michael Zachary
    14                                    Counsel to t h e Grievance Panel
    15
    16
    17                                   APPENDIX
    18
    19                        Text of July 2010 order
    20
    21        For the reasons that follow, Yung H. Hsu, also known as
    22   Allen Y. Hsu, [footnote omitted] is ordered to show cause why
    23   disciplinary or other corrective measures should not be imposed
    24   on him pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 46(b) and
    25   (c) and Second Circuit Local Rule 46.2.
    26
    27        A review of the six cases in this Court in which Hsu is
    28   listed as an attorney of record reveals that he has a pattern of
    29   poor briefing.   In three cases, this Court denied the petitions
    30   for review filed by Hsu on the basis that he had waived all
    31   dispositive issues this Court was empowered to review.   In Chang
    32   Wei He v. Mukasey, Hsu's brief challenged findings made by an
    33   immigration judge ("IJ") in 1998 instead of the 2008 Board of
    34   Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision denying Chang Wei He's
    35   motion to reconsider - the only order this Court had authority to
    36   review -  causing this Court to hold that Hsu had "waived any
    4 Counsel to this panel is authorized to provide, upon
    request, documents from the record of this proceeding to other
    attorney disciplinary authorities.   While we request that all
    such documents remain confidential to the extent circumstances
    allow, we leave to the discretion of those disciplinary
    authorities the decision of whether specific documents, or
    portions of documents, should be made available to any person or
    the public.
    6
    1   challenges that could have been raised. u See 09-0159-ag, brief
    2   filed Jun. 1, 2009, order filed Feb. 16, 2010, at 2.    Similarly,
    3   in Shu Mei Chen v. Holder, Hsu' s brief failed to challenge either
    4   of two dispositive bases for the BIA's denial of Shu Mei Chen's
    5   motion to rescind her in absentia order of removal, and waived
    6   any challenge to the BIA's denial of her motion to reopen by
    7   failing to argue that country conditions in China had changed.
    8   See 09-2148-ag, brief filed Sep. 11, 2009, order filed Feb. 18,
    9   2010, at 3-5. Most recently, in Yan Zhang-Xiano v. Holder, the
    10   Court denied the petition for review because Hsu's brief did not
    11   challenge the BIA's denial of Yan Zhang-Xiano's motion to
    12   reconsider, which was the only decision properly before the
    13   Court.  See 09-2149-ag, order filed Jun. 18, 2010, at 2-3.    The
    14   Court also noted that even "the portions of t h e brief that [were]
    15   arguably responsive to the decision actually before [the Court]
    16   fail[ed] to assert a meaningful legal argument appropriate for
    17   [the Court's] review. u 
    Id., at 3.
    18
    19          Hsu's other three cases reflect similar issues and a troubling
    20   misunderstanding of basic principles of immigration law. First, in
    21   Zhou Jian Ni v. Mukasey, Hsu filed the petition for review in this
    22   Court, even though it was apparent that all relevant proceedings
    23   had taken place in New Jersey; accordingly, in September 2008, this
    24   Court granted the Government's motion for transfer of the petition
    25   to the Third Circuit. See 08-3941, order filed Sep. 10, 2008. In
    26   opposing the Government's transfer motion, Hsu erroneously argued
    27   that "[t]ransfer of venue is merely a question of convenience,u and
    28   suggested that the relevant test was whether the transfer would
    29   impose "undue hardship,u without citation to any supporting
    30   auth o rity.  
    Id., opposition filed
    Sep. 8, 2008, at 2.     Second, in
    31   Yu Bing Yu v. Holder, where Hsu represented Yu Bing Yu before both
    32   the BIA and this Court, this Court denied the petition for review
    33   filed by Hsu on the basis that his motion to the BIA for
    34   re c onsiderati o n, which had been filed four years after the BIA
    35   order being challenged, was "unquestionably untimelyU; the Court
    36   also found that, if the motion to the BIA were construed as a
    37   motion to reopen, it remained meritless since Hsu "did not submit
    38   any evidence o f changed country conditions, or, indeed, any
    39   evidence at al l , in support of the motion. u See 09-1763-ag, order
    40   filed Sep. 25,       2009.     A review of Hsu's response to the
    41   Go vernment's motion for summary affirmance of the BIA's order, and
    42   his motion to "strike u the Government's motion, reveals that both
    43   documents are of exceedingly poor quality, and appear to suggest,
    44   inter alia, that a petitioner need not submit evidence in support
    45   of a claim of changed country conditions when filing a motion to
    46   reopen before the BIA.       
    Id., motion filed
    Jul. 20, 2009, response
    47   filed Aug. 4, 2009.        See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (1) ("A motion to
    48   reopen proceedings shall state the new facts that will be proven at
    49   a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be
    7
    1    supported by affidavits or other evidentiary materiaL") . Finally ,
    2    in Zhu Feng Zheng v . Holder , the Government filed a motion to
    3    dismiss for lack of jurisdiction , because Hsu, who also had
    4    represented Zhu Feng Zheng before the BlA , had filed the petition
    5    for review more than six months after the BlA had issued its
    6    decision , well past the statutory 30 - day deadline. See 09 - 2786 - ag ,
    7    motion filed Dec . 1 , 2009 , at 3 . The motion to dismiss , which Hsu
    8    did not respond to, is presently pending before this Court .
    9
    10          Hsu ' s conduct also has been questioned in a bankruptcy
    11   proceeding in the Southern District of New York , where the trustee
    12   for an estate moved for sanctions under 28 U. S.C . § 1927 against
    13   Hsu and a debtor .       See In re Truong, 
    2008 WL 1776227
    (Bkrtcy.
    14   S.D . N.Y. Apr . 14 , 2008) . Although Hsu settled the sanction issue
    15   with the trustee, and the court ' s decision does not describe the
    16   specific allegations against Hsu , it appears that Hsu was alleged
    17   to have engaged in conduct intended to delay and disrupt the
    18   trustee's administration of estate property .     Id . at *1 .
    19
    20        Upon due consideration of the matters described above, it is
    21   hereby ORDERED that Hsu show cause, in a detailed declaration, why
    22   he should not be removed from the bar of this Court , or subject to
    23   other disciplinary or corrective measures , based on the conduct
    24   described above .  The declaration must be made under penalty of
    25   perjury and filed within twenty - eight days of the filing date of
    26   this order . Furthermore , the declaration must include :
    27
    28         (a) a complete list of all cases in this Court in which
    29         he is, or was , counsel of record or performing legal
    30         services for any litigant (which is to be updated with
    31         any additional cases in which he begins providing legal
    32         services after the filing of the initial list required by
    33         this clause) ;
    34
    35         (b) a complete list of all cases currently pending in the
    36         federal district and bankruptcy courts of this circuit in
    37         which he is counsel of record or performing legal
    38         services for any litigant (which is to be updated with
    39         any additional cases in which he begins providing legal
    40         services after the filing of the initial list required by
    41         this clause);
    42
    43         (c) a complete list of all bars of which he is a member,
    44         including all bar numbers and other bar identification
    45         information , and a statement of whether he is in good
    46         standing with each identified bar ;
    47
    48         (d) a statement of whether he has been disbarred,
    49         suspended , reprimanded, or otherwise disciplined by any
    50         bar or court and , if so, a copy of each document imposing
    8
    1   such a disciplinary   measure    must   be    attached   to   the
    2   declaration;
    3
    4   (e) a statement of whether, aside from any document
    5   listed in response to clause (d), he has ever been
    6   ordered by any court or bar disciplinary authority to
    7   show cause why he should not be disciplined and, if so,
    8   a copy of each such order, and any response to each such
    9   order, must be attached to the declaration; and
    10
    11    (f) an explanation for all of the conduct discussed in
    12   this order, including a discussion of whether his clients
    13   were    prejudiced   in  any   way   by   that   conduct.
    14   Additionally, Hsu must provide this Court with a copy of
    15   the sanction motion that was filed in the Truong case,
    16   all supporting and responding pleadings relating to that
    17   motion, and all documents memorializing the agreement
    18   between Hsu and the trustee settling the sanction claims.
    19
    20                  [additional text omitted]
    21
    22                            FOR THE COURT:
    23                            Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
    24
    25                            By:
    --``~-
    /s/   -~-------------------
    26                                    Michael Zachary
    27                                    Counsel to the Grievance Panel
    9
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-9007

Filed Date: 1/9/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021