CUBER

page
59
Cite as 30 I&N Dec. 59 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4246
Matter of Ashley Briana CUBER, Respondent
Decided September 18, 2026
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
In the absence of a timely answer to the Notice of Intent to Discipline, the Board
generally does not diverge from the sanction recommended in a Notice of Intent to
Discipline that is based on reciprocal discipline.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Pro se
FOR THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL: Nathan S. Henriksen, Disciplinary Counsel
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: 	Catherine M. O’Connell,
Disciplinary Counsel
BEFORE: Board Panel: MALPHRUS, Chief Appellate Immigration Judge; MULLANE
and CREPPY, Appellate Immigration Judges.
MULLANE, Appellate Immigration Judge:
The Disciplinary Counsels for the Executive Office for Immigration
Review and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) have filed a
Joint Notice of Intent to Discipline requesting that the respondent be
suspended from the practice of law before the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”), the Immigration Courts, and DHS for 1 year. 	We will enter an
order of suspension.
On June 26, 2025, the Supreme Court of Washington granted the
Washington State Bar Association’s petition for interim suspension and
suspended the respondent from the practice of law in Washington, effective
immediately. On July 15, 2025, the Disciplinary Counsel for the Executive
Office for Immigration Review and the Disciplinary Counsel for DHS filed
a Joint Petition for Immediate Suspension based upon the respondent’s
interim suspension in Washington. 	See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.103(a)(1), (2)
(2026). 	We 	granted 	the 	petition 	on 	July 	25, 	2025. 	See 	8 	C.F.R.
§ 1003.103(a)(4) (2026) (discussing grounds for immediate suspension).
The Disciplinary Counsels also filed a Joint Notice of Intent to Discipline,
charging that the respondent is subject to summary discipline based on the
interim 	suspension 	order 	entered 	against 	her 	in 	Washington. 	On

Cite as 30 I&N Dec. 59 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4246
page
60
June 9, 2026, the Disciplinary Counsels filed an Amended Joint Notice of
Intent to Discipline, acknowledging that the prior Joint Notice of Intent to
Discipline was prematurely filed, as the Washington suspension order was
not a final order at that time. 	The Amended Joint Notice of Intent to
Discipline, which supersedes the initial one, alleges that on May 7, 2026, the
Supreme Court of Washington issued a final order suspending the respondent
from the practice of law in Washington for a period of 1 year, effective 7 days
from the date of the order. A certified copy of the final order was submitted
with the Amended Joint Notice of Intent to Discipline. The Amended Joint
Notice of Intent to Discipline charges that, because the respondent is subject
to a final order of suspension, she is now subject to summary discipline.
8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.103(b), 1003.106(a) (2026).
The respondent was required to file a timely answer to the allegations
contained in the Amended Joint Notice of Intent to Discipline but has failed
to do so. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.105(c)(1) (2026). The respondent’s failure to file
a response within the time prescribed constitutes an admission of the
allegations therein, and the respondent is now precluded from requesting a
hearing on the matter. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.105(d)(1), (2) (2026); accord Matter
of K. Gupta, 28 I&N Dec. 653, 655 (BIA 2022).
The Amended Joint Notice of Intent to Discipline proposes that the
respondent be suspended from practice before the Board, the Immigration
Courts, and DHS for 1 year. 	Because the respondent has failed to file an
answer, the regulations direct us to adopt the proposed sanction unless there
are considerations that compel us to diverge from that proposal. 	8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.105(d)(2) (noting that considerations include the need to prevent
“inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct” or sanctions that “would
otherwise be unwarranted or not in the interests of justice”); accord Matter
of K. Gupta, 28 I&N Dec. at 655–56.
The 	proposed 	sanction 	is 	appropriate 	in 	light 	of 	the 	respondent’s
suspension 	from 	the 	practice 	of 	law 	in 	Washington. 	While 	we 	can
independently evaluate the propriety of any recommended sanction, in the
absence of a timely answer to the Notice of Intent to Discipline, the Board
generally does not diverge from the sanction recommended in a Notice of
Intent to Discipline that is based on reciprocal discipline. 	See generally
Matter of Kronegold, 25 I&N Dec. 157, 161 (BIA 2010) (discussing the
Board’s deferential approach to reciprocal discipline). 	We will honor the
proposed discipline and will order the respondent suspended from practice
before the Board, the Immigration Courts, and DHS for 1 year. 	The
respondent’s suspension will be effective as of July 25, 2025, the date of our
immediate suspension order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.103(a)(4) (providing that

Cite as 30 I&N Dec. 59 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4246
page
61
time spent under immediate suspension “may be credited toward the period
of suspension imposed under the final administrative decision”).
ORDER: 	The Board hereby suspends the respondent from practice
before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and DHS,
for 1 year, effective July 25, 2025.
FURTHER ORDER: The respondent must maintain compliance with
the directives set forth in our prior order. 	The respondent must notify the
Board of any further disciplinary action against her.
FURTHER ORDER: 	The contents of the order shall be made
available to the public, including at the Immigration Courts and appropriate
offices of DHS.
FURTHER ORDER: 	The respondent may petition this Board for
reinstatement to practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the
Immigration Courts, and DHS under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.107 (2026).