Missed Court Because a Notario Told You Not to Go? What Matter of K-K-U-J- Means

You paid someone to help with your immigration case. That person told you not to worry about court, or that your hearing had been postponed. You stayed home, and the judge ordered you removed without you there. If that happened to you or someone in your family, a new precedent from the Board of Immigration Appeals makes the most obvious argument for reopening much harder to win.

The short version: on September 18, 2026, the Attorney General designated Matter of K-K-U-J-, 30 I&N Dec. 81 (BIA 2026), as a precedent. Under it, bad advice from someone who is not a lawyer is generally not an "exceptional circumstance" that justifies reopening an in absentia removal order. That does not mean every case like this is over. Below is what the Board decided, why the rule was already the law in Pennsylvania, and what still works as of October 2026.

What Happened in Matter of K-K-U-J-

The man in the case, from Uzbekistan, hired someone to ask the immigration court to postpone his hearing. He said that person misled him into believing he did not have to appear in court on his hearing date. He missed the hearing, and the immigration judge ordered him removed in absentia.

He then asked the judge to reopen the case. The immigration judge agreed, found that the man had been deliberately deceived, and treated that as an exceptional circumstance. The Department of Homeland Security appealed. The man did not respond to the appeal, and the Board reversed the judge.

What the Board Decided

The Board summarized its holding this way: "The Immigration Judge erred in finding exceptional circumstances warranting sua sponte reopening and rescission of an in absentia removal order where the record did not support the respondent's claim that an individual misled him into believing he did not need to appear in Immigration Court." Matter of K-K-U-J-, 30 I&N Dec. at 81.

Two facts in the record decided the case:

• The papers were in his own name. Both requests to postpone the hearing said he was representing himself, he had signed them, and neither one carried the helper's name or signature. The Board found it unreasonable for him to rely on the helper's word that he did not need to go to court.
• The helper never claimed to be a lawyer. The Board pointed out that "the respondent did not allege that the individual told him that he was an attorney." Id. at 82.

The Board also relied on a rule it announced earlier in 2026: "A respondent cannot succeed on her ineffective assistance of counsel claim where the individual she hired was not an attorney and did not hold himself out to be one." Matter of Z-R-C-N-, 29 I&N Dec. 523, 525 (BIA 2026).

The Third Circuit Already Said This

For families in Pennsylvania, K-K-U-J- mostly confirms what the Third Circuit had already held. The Third Circuit's decisions bind the immigration court in Philadelphia, and the Board cited its decision in Jean Louis v. Attorney General, 914 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2019).

In Jean Louis, a man skipped his asylum hearing because someone he believed was a lawyer told him to. The court refused to reopen his case, explaining that "exceptional circumstances must not only be extreme, but also beyond the alien's control." Id., slip op. at 5. Choosing to follow a non-lawyer's advice was his own decision, so the court held it was not beyond his control.

The court did not pretend the result was easy: "But this situation, while regrettable, is not exceptional." Id., slip op. at 7.

Who This Affects Most

• People who used a notario, consultant, or "immigration helper" who was not a licensed attorney and missed court on that person's advice.
• People who were told a hearing was "moved" or "cancelled" and never checked with the court themselves.
• People who signed court filings as self-represented while believing someone else was handling the case.

If one of these describes your family, do not assume the case is lost. Assume instead that the motion has to be built around what really happened and who really did what, with documents to prove it.

Missed court because someone told you not to go?

After Matter of K-K-U-J-, bad advice alone usually is not enough, and you generally get only one motion. We review your record before anything is filed.

Talk to a Removal Defense Attorney

Or call (484) 763-4984

What Still Works

K-K-U-J- closes one door. Several others are still open.

Fraud by a real lawyer or paralegal is different. The Third Circuit has said: "We have held that fraud committed by lawyers and paralegals can qualify as an exceptional circumstance." Jean Louis, slip op. at 5 (citing Borges v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 398, 408 (3d Cir. 2005)). If the person who misled you was a licensed attorney, worked for one, or presented themselves as a lawyer, the analysis changes, and the evidence of what they told you becomes central.

Mistakes by a real lawyer can support a motion. If a licensed attorney's error caused you to miss court, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim may be possible. It must follow the procedure the Board set in Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988): a sworn statement from you describing the agreement with the lawyer, notice to the lawyer and a chance to respond, and a complaint to the lawyer's bar or an explanation of why none was filed. In K-K-U-J-, the Board noted that those steps were not followed either. 30 I&N Dec. at 83.

The other grounds for reopening are untouched. If you missed court because of a serious illness or the death of a close family member, you generally have 180 days from the order to file. If you never received notice of the hearing, or you were in jail or ICE custody through no fault of your own, you may file at any time. Our full guide to reopening an in absentia order walks through each ground. If your notice went to an old address, read our explainer on Matter of Diji, the Board's other big in absentia decision this fall.

Evidence Decides These Motions

Mr. K-K-U-J- lost largely because his own signed papers contradicted his story. The record said he was representing himself, and nothing in it showed that anyone else was. A motion that has a real chance usually includes:

• Your own sworn declaration about who you hired, what they promised, and what they told you about the hearing.
• Receipts, contracts, text messages, or voicemails showing the arrangement and the advice.
• Any business card, ad, or social media post where the person called themselves a lawyer or "abogado."
• Proof of any complaint you made to the police, the Pennsylvania Attorney General, or a bar association.
• Evidence that you acted quickly once you learned about the order.

Before arguing anything, we pull the court record and review every document filed in your name, because that is exactly what the judge and the Board will read first.

Why You Get One Shot: The One-Motion Rule

You generally get one motion to reopen, and in August the Board made that limit stricter: "We hold that the INA's number bar on motions to reopen is not subject to equitable tolling." Matter of M-M-L-J-, 29 I&N Dec. 843, 846 (BIA 2026). A thin motion filed in a hurry, often by the same helper who caused the problem, can use up the only chance you have.

How to Protect Yourself From Notario Fraud

• Check that your helper is licensed. Only a licensed attorney, or a DOJ-accredited representative working for a recognized organization, may represent you in immigration court. In much of Latin America a "notario público" is a lawyer. In the United States, a notary public is not a lawyer and may not give legal advice.
• Read anything before you sign it. If a court filing says you are representing yourself, then as far as the court is concerned, you are.
• Confirm your hearing yourself. Call the EOIR automated line at 1-800-898-7180 or check EOIR's online case status with your A-Number. A hearing is not postponed unless the judge grants the postponement.
• Keep every receipt and message. If someone defrauded you, that record is your evidence later.

What This Means in the Lehigh Valley

Most removal cases for families in Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton, and Reading are heard at the Philadelphia Immigration Court, and appeals go to the Third Circuit. Because Jean Louis has been binding here since 2019, K-K-U-J- does not change much for local cases, but it does make it less likely that a judge will reopen on bad advice alone. A common pattern is a family that paid a storefront "immigration service," signed forms they could not read, and learned about a removal order years later.

If that is your situation, the first steps are the same: confirm whether an order exists by calling 1-800-898-7180, gather every receipt and message from the person you hired, update your address with the court on Form EOIR-33, and do not let the same helper file anything else for you. If you are just starting a case, our guide to your first five steps after a Notice to Appear explains how to stay on top of your hearing dates. To talk through your case with our removal defense team, we are in downtown Allentown.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did Matter of K-K-U-J- decide?

The Board of Immigration Appeals held that an immigration judge was wrong to reopen an in absentia removal order based on a claim that a non-lawyer misled the respondent into skipping court. The respondent had signed the filings himself as a self-represented party and never claimed the person said they were a lawyer. The Attorney General designated the decision as a precedent on September 18, 2026.

A notario told me I did not have to go to court. Can I reopen my case?

Bad advice from a non-lawyer, by itself, is generally not an exceptional circumstance in Pennsylvania, under both K-K-U-J- and the Third Circuit's Jean Louis decision. Other grounds may still apply, such as not receiving notice of the hearing, or fraud by someone who claimed to be a lawyer. Have a lawyer review the court record before anything is filed.

What if the person told me they were a lawyer?

That can change the analysis. The Third Circuit has held that fraud by lawyers and paralegals can qualify as an exceptional circumstance. You will need evidence of what the person told you and what they did, such as receipts, messages, and advertisements.

Is there a deadline to reopen based on exceptional circumstances?

Generally yes, 180 days from the date of the in absentia order. A motion based on not receiving notice of the hearing, or on being in custody through no fault of your own, may be filed at any time.

How many motions to reopen can I file?

Generally one. In August 2026, in Matter of M-M-L-J-, the Board held that this limit is not subject to equitable tolling, so a weak first motion can use up your only chance.

Get Help With an In Absentia Order

Lehigh Valley Immigration Law files motions to reopen at the Philadelphia Immigration Court for families across the Lehigh Valley, and we build every motion around the evidence, not just the argument. If you have an in absentia order, or a notario handled your case, we offer a free bilingual consultation. Call (484) 763-4984 or contact us online. Every case is different, and no result can be guaranteed.