“continued to assure me that my case was being taken care of and that I would not be at risk of deportation.” This statement is corroborated: although Burns continued to represent Petitioner as the motion to reopen filing deadline approached, Burns did not file any motion or application on Petitioner’s behalf until Petitioner was ordered to surrender on January 7, 2003; on that date, Burns filed an Application to Stay Deportation, representing that a motion to reopen on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds and marital status would be forthcoming. That Burns filed such an application at the eleventh hour rather than within the ninety day time limit (of which he was well aware) corroborates Petitioner’s allegations of ineffective assistance. Cf. Rodriguez-Lariz, 282 F.3d at 1226 (<HOLDING>); Rabiu v. INS, 41 F.3d 879, 882 (2d Cir.1994)
holding that counsels total failure to conduct pretrial discovery constituted ineffective assistance holding that the merits of petitioners ineffective assistance claim were immaterial as counsels shortcomings could not account for petitioners failure to timely file his second motion to reopen holding that although we had previously held that an attorneys failure to inform his or her client of the immigration consequences of a conviction was not ineffective assistance actively misleading the client concerning these consequences was ineffective assistance holding that failure to object to admissible evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel holding that attorneys failure to timely file application for suspension of deportation despite contrary representations to client constituted ineffective assistance