"There is no right to a court-appointed attorney in immigration court." Oof, that's the problem right there. Not to mention an identity mixup.
I mean... it is a problem, but it's also pretty explicitly by design. Most things immigration related are not criminal issues. Think a good chunk aren't even
civil ones, so far as the court system goes, iirc. Which means the constitutional protections given to criminals and those engaged in civil disputes are not extended to those getting shat on, rightly or otherwise, by immigration courts.
This is done for a whole host of incredibly farcically shitty reasons and one
really goddamn practical one, namely that giving immigration supplicants, or issues related to them, or people
mistaken for them, the full procedural rights given civil or (gods forbid) criminal cases, would grind our legal system and our immigration system and probably chunks of our law enforcement et al system to a screaming halt. Things that take years, now, would probably end up taking decades. Isp would probably have fun imagining an immigration system that both has to pay for all the extra by itself
and works several times slower.
So yeah, fellow didn't get a court appointed attorney. Regardless of the ethical aspect (and, don't mistake that, I'd fall real hard in favor of full protections for everyone for everything if I wasn't being hauled into ambivalence land by the concept of lawyers that need sleep) , the logistics one takes one look at the concept and starts screaming about happy happy fractally recursive self-fucking hell. It's exaggerating, a bit, but it's around the right level of whooping terror.