his former counsel failed to adequately prepare him for the merits hearing in October 2004 before the Immigration Judge. Hossain also contends that, prior to the hearing, his former counsel failed to discuss with him the legal requirements for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Hossain admits that later, within a short time after the BIA denied his appeal, his former counsel read to him the BIA’s decision. Despite numerous signs that would have alerted a reasonable person — much less one with the legal education and training like Hossain — to his counsel’s possible deficient performance, Hossain nevertheless failed to take any action to investigate until he met with current counsel on October 12, 2007. See Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 680 (<HOLDING>). Under these circumstances, the BIA did not
holding that the denial of petitioners appeal to the bia would have put a reasonable person in the petitioners position on notice that something was wrong with his attorneys preparation for the removal hearing holding that attorneys admission to an element of the offense in the petitioners presence at a deportation hearing was binding on the petitioners holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the bia to fail to consider the merits of a petitioners claim holding that we will not review an issue or claim that was not presented to the bia in the petitioners notice of appeal or brief to the bia even if the bia considered the issue or claim sua sponte holding that the mechanical failure of the petitioners car on the way to the hearing did not constitute exceptional circumstances where petitioners returned home instead of finding transportation to the hearing and made only a cursory effort to contact the court