On Wednesday, September 10, 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals suspended attorney Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry from practicing before the Immigration Courts, the Board, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for 60 days, effective 15 days from the order. This decision partially upheld and partially dismissed an appeal by Gharti-Chhetry of an earlier disciplinary action.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry.”
The disciplinary proceedings originated from a Notice of Intent to Discipline (NID) filed on June 9, 2022, which cited professional misconduct related to the submission of deficient appellate briefs on behalf of two clients to the Board. The NID alleged violations of several sections of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.102, including frivolous behavior, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, incompetence, and failure to act with reasonable diligence. One count also alleged Gharti-Chhetry knowingly or recklessly made a false statement of a material fact or law.
The Adjudicating Official initially found Gharti-Chhetry culpable on all counts on October 3, 2023, leading to a 90-day suspension. Gharti-Chhetry appealed this decision, arguing that any errors in his briefs were inadvertent and did not warrant such a severe sanction.
The Board’s review upheld the disciplinary charges related to Count One (D2020-0024), concerning client R.A. The Board found clear and convincing evidence that Gharti-Chhetry violated regulations regarding false statements, frivolous behavior, conduct prejudicial to justice, incompetence, and lack of diligence. The ruling highlighted that a brief submitted on behalf of R.A. contained numerous false statements and factual assertions without a basis in the record. The Board dismissed Gharti-Chhetry’s claim that these errors were merely clerical, emphasizing his responsibility as the signing practitioner to ensure the accuracy of submitted documents.
However, the Board reversed the Adjudicating Official’s decision regarding Count Two (D2021-0079), which involved client R.M.M. The Board disagreed that Disciplinary Counsels had provided clear and convincing evidence that Gharti-Chhetry’s actions met the criteria for the charged disciplinary grounds. These charges stemmed from Gharti-Chhetry’s appellate brief, which challenged only the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination, not the alternative findings. The Board found that Gharti-Chhetry’s strategic decision to focus on certain arguments did not necessarily constitute a failure to provide reasonably effective assistance.
In determining the final sanction, the Board considered both aggravating and mitigating factors. Aggravating factors included Gharti-Chhetry’s prior disciplinary history, the vulnerability of his client, his extensive experience, and a pattern of misconduct. Mitigating factors encompassed his cooperation during the proceedings, evidence of his good character and reputation in the community, lack of dishonest motive, and expressions of remorse. The Board concluded that a 60-day suspension appropriately balanced these factors to protect the public interest and maintain the integrity of the legal system.
Gharti-Chhetry is required to notify all current clients of his suspension and maintain records demonstrating compliance with the order. He may petition the Board for reinstatement following the suspension period, adhering to specific requirements.
According to Avvo.com, Mr. Gharti-Chhetry is an immigration attorney in New York, New York. He attended the Columbia University School of Law.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
