Marcelino Segundo-Sanchez, A200 248 313 (BIA Dec. 29, 2014)
Marcelino Segundo-Sanchez, A200 248 313 (BIA Dec. 29, 2014)
Marcelino Segundo-Sanchez, A200 248 313 (BIA Dec. 29, 2014)
Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
A 200-248-313
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,
DOWtL ca.AA)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Adkins-Blanch, Charles K.
Guendelsberger. John
Hoffman, Sharon
Userteam: Docket
Cite as: Marcelino Segundo-Sanchez, A200 248 313 (BIA Dec. 29, 2014)
File:
Date:
DEC 2 9 2014
APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:
The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, has appealed the Immigration Judge's
decision dated January 31, 2013, denying his motion for a continuance and his application for
voluntary departure. The appeal will be dismissed in part and sustained in part.
The Board reviews an Immigration Judge's findings of fact, including findings as to the
credibility of testimony, under a clearly erroneous standard. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i). The
Board reviews questions of law, discretion, and judgment, and all other issues raised in an
Immigration Judge's decision de novo. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(ii).
As an initial matter, we find no merit in the respondent's argument that the Immigration
Judge deprived him of the privilege of counsel in these proceedings because he did not grant the
respondent a further continuance to retain the counsel. The respondent had already been granted
a continuance of approximately 3 months to retain counsel (Tr. at 9, 12-13). We are satisfied
that the respondent was afforded a reasonable and realistic period of time to seek, speak with,
and retain counsel of his choice, and therefore failed to demonstrate good cause to further delay
the proceedings. See Matter
ofC-B-, 25
of Perez-Andrade,
19 l&N Dec. 433 (BIA 1987) (the decision to grant or deny a continuance for good cause is
within the sound discretion of the Immigration Judge and will not be overturned on appeal unless
it is shown that the respondent was denied a full and fair hearing); 8 C.F.R. 1003.29 and
1240.6.
The respondent's claim that he was deprived of an opportunity to apply for "prosecutorial
discretion" is also without merit and provides no basis for reversing the Immigration Judge's
decision. The discretion to defer action on the respondent's removal lies with the Department of
Homeland Security. The respondent can pursue that relief at any time independent of these
proceedings, until such time as he is actually removed from the United States.
We disagree with the Immigration Judge1s conclusion that the respondent did not
demonstrate he merits voluntary departure in the exercise of discretion. While we take the
respondent's admission of a relatively recent arrest in 2011 for driving under the influence with
young children present in his vehicle very seriously, we conclude that the respondent's positive
equities outweigh the negative. As noted by the Immigration Judge, the respondent lives in a
family unit in which he serves as a father-figure to young children, he is gainfully employed, and
he has had a long period of residence in the United States. In balancing these positive equities
Cite as: Marcelino Segundo-Sanchez, A200 248 313 (BIA Dec. 29, 2014)
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
against the negative, we find that the respondent merits voluntary departure in the exercise of
discretion, and we will grant him that limited form of relief under our de novo review authority.
Accordingly, the following orders will be entered.
ORDER: The respondent's appeal is dismissed in part and sustained in part.
permitted to voluntarily depart the United States, without expense to the Government, within 60
days from the date of this order or any extension beyond that time as may be granted by the
Department of Homeland Security ("DHS").
respondent fails to voluntarily depart the United States, the respondent shall be removed as
provided in the Immigration Judge's order.
NOTICE: If the respondent fails to voluntarily depart the United States within the time
period specified, or any extensions granted by the DHS, the respondent shall be subject to a civil
penalty as provided by the regulations and the statute and shall be ineligible for a period of 10
years for any further relief under section 240B and sections 240A, 245, 248, and 249 of the Act.
See 8 C.F.R.
1240.26(e)(l).
WARNING: If, prior to departing the United States, the respondent files any judicial
challenge to this administratively final order, such as a petition for review pursuant to section
242 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1252, the grant of voluntary departure is automatically terminated, and
the alternate order of removal shall immediately take effect. However, if the respondent files a
petition for review and then departs the United States within 30 days of such filing, the
respondent will not be deemed to have departed under an order of removal if the alien provides
to the DHS such evidence of his or her departure that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Field Office Director of the DHS may require and provides evidence DHS deems sufficient that
he or she has remained outside of the United States. The penalties for failure to depart under
section 240B(d) of the Act shall not apply to an alien who files a petition for review,
notwithstanding any period of time that he or she remains in the United States while the petition
for review is pending. See 8 C.F.R. 1240.26(i).
Cite as: Marcelino Segundo-Sanchez, A200 248 313 (BIA Dec. 29, 2014)
FURTHER ORDER: Pursuant to the Immigration Judge's order and conditioned upon
compliance with conditions set forth by the Immigration Judge and the statute, the respondent is
File:
In
CALIFORNIA
A200-24B-313
January 31,
2013
the Matter of
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
RESPONDENT
CHARGES:
APPLICATIONS:
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:
ON BEHALF OF OHS:
PRO SE
SIRIN OZEN-HALLBERG
admitted or paroled.
See Exhibit 1.
6,
2012,
on
2011.
2012,
the
At that time,
his right to
and his right
Nonetheless,
the Court
born in Mexico.
A200-24 8-313
The
not a citizen
January 31,
2013
place,
and
In this case,
2003.
therefore,
4:-t-is sustained.
is the
regulatory,
and ethical
A200-24 8-313
January 31,
2013
____
OS
October 2011.
As such,
in any event,
qualifying relatives
The Court
He +has not
in the United
such basis.
The respondent testified that he never suffered past
harm in Mexico on account of his race,
religion,
nationality,
or political opinion.
Asked if he
don't know."T
Asked
repeatedly whether he had any fear that somebody would harm him
because of his race,
sort of group,
religion,
nationality,
or political opinion,
membership in some
answered "No."
The Court had the opportunity to observe the demeanor
A200-24 8-313
January 31,
2013
in March 2003.
The Court is
The Court
He has
The Department of
criminal history.
Under the circumstances,
was apparent the applicant could apply for before the Court was
an application for voluntary departure.
A200-248-313
January 31,
2013
v.
discretion,
(9th Cir.
Ct.
959 (2009).
2fl_:_,
2008),
ln
e
. / Fonnatted: Un deri
-:::: /
_..-Formatte
:
d Und
i
l
rn
e
e
____
l ne
./ Formatted: Und erl
In exercising this
unfavorable factors.
history,
(9th Cir.
Becerril-Lopez, 54 1 F. 3d 881,887
See,
1999}.
See Lafarga v.
INS,
170 F. 3d 1213,
1216
entries,
family ties,
24 4
I& N
Dec.
and other
14
I&N
Dec.
Matter of Torre, 19
(.
___
. ,
18 (BIA 198 4 ) .
In this case there are several factors
that militate
Formatte
d
:
Und
l
i
e
r ne
>Fonnatt
u_ n d_ e
_
__ --<
d
:
e
r
e
n
_
__
_
_ u_ __
_
_
_
_
_
:
Fo rm_a
e
n_
_ttecl _
_der __
u nl
__
_1
___ -<
>
Formatte
d
: Und
in
e
r e
l
Fonnatte
:
d Und
e
rline
when he was
employed,
Nonetheles s , the
A200-24 8-313
January 31,
2013
----( Fonnatte
:
d Ind
n
e t: First llne:
1"
factor.
The respondent Cert has no other significant family
ties in the United States.
United States.
He is unmarried.
He has no children.
He has no
There is no evidence
The
He
The
while driving
He testified that
a-fl:&-ftonetheless,
A200-24 8-313
an
adverse discretionary
January 31,
2013
l"
and 8 C.F.R.
or electronic
signature
PHILIP J. COSTA
Immigration Judge
A200-248-313
January 31,
2013
factor.
/Isl/
Inunigration Judge PHILIP J.
costap on April 18,
A200-248-313
COSTA
January 31,
2013