Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 543 views

    Jorge Perez, A205 406 702 (BIA Oct. 1, 2015)

    Uploaded by

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC
    In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded for further consideration of the respondent's request for administrative closure to allow him to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver (Form I-601A). The Board held that the immigration judge's decision, which stated only that administrative closure was not "judicially economical," did not sufficiently explain the basis for his denial of the motion. The decision was issued by Member Neil Miller. Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Jorge Perez, A205 406 702 (BIA Oct. 1, 2015)

    Uploaded by

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC
    543 views9 pages
    In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded for further consideration of the respondent's request for administrative closure to allow him to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver (Form I-601A). The Board held that the immigration judge's decision, which stated only that administrative closure was not "judicially economical," did not sufficiently explain the basis for his denial of the motion. The decision was issued by Member Neil Miller. Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded for further consideration of the respondent's request for administrative closure to allow him to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver (Form I-601A). The Board held that the immigration judge's decision, which stated only that administrative closure was not "judicially economical," did not sufficiently explain the basis for his denial of the motion. The decision was issued by Member Neil Miller. Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    543 views9 pages

    Jorge Perez, A205 406 702 (BIA Oct. 1, 2015)

    Uploaded by

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC
    In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded for further consideration of the respondent's request for administrative closure to allow him to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver (Form I-601A). The Board held that the immigration judge's decision, which stated only that administrative closure was not "judicially economical," did not sufficiently explain the basis for his denial of the motion. The decision was issued by Member Neil Miller. Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 9

    U.S.

    Department of Justice

    Executive Office for Immigration Review


    Board ofImmigration Appeals
    Office ofthe Clerk
    5107 leesburg P;ke, Suite 2000
    Falls Church, Virginia 22041

    OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - TUS


    P.0. Box 25158
    Phoenix, AZ 85002

    Name: PEREZ, JORGE

    A 205-406-702
    Date of this notice: 10/1/2015

    Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
    Sincerely,

    DonrtL

    t1/lA)

    Donna Carr
    Chief Clerk
    Enclosure
    Panel Members:
    Miller, Neil P.

    Userteam: Docket

    For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit


    www.irac.net/unpublished/index/

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

    Mccarroll, Michael Joseph


    Law Offices of Mathew H. Green
    130 West Cushing Street
    Tucson, AZ 85701

    U.S. Department of Justice

    Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

    Exe<;utive Office for Immigration Review


    Falls Church, Virginia 22041

    File: A205 406 702 - Tucson, Arizona

    Date:

    OCT -1 2015

    IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
    APPEAL
    ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Michael J. McCarroll, Esquire

    APPLICATION: Administrative closure


    By a decision of July 25, 2014, the Immigration Judge afforded the respondent the privilege
    of voluntary departure. By a separate, undated form order entered into the record on the same
    date, (Exh. 18), the Immigration Judge declined to administratively close proceedings, with the
    reason provided being "not judicially economical."
    The respondent has appealed. The
    Department of Homeland Security has not responded to the appeal. The decisions of the
    Immigration Judge will be vacated and the record will be remanded for further proceedings.
    The respondent has sought to have the proceedings administratively closed in order to file an
    Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver (Form I-601A) with United States
    Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"). See 8 C.F.R. 212.7(e). The respondent is the
    beneficiary of an approved visa petition filed on his behalf by his United States citizen wife. He
    is also the parent of 3 minor United States citizen children. Although an alien in removal
    proceedings is generally barred from pursuing the provisional waiver, the pertinent regulation
    and related regulatory history expressly contemplate the possible grant of administrative closure
    (followed by a request for termination or dismissal of proceedings without prejudice where the
    waiver is ultimately approved) for aliens in removal proceedings who would otherwise be
    eligible to apply for provisional waivers. See 8 C.F.R. 212.7(e)(4)(v); Provisional Unlawful
    Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives, Final Rule, 78 Fed. Reg.
    536, 538 (January 3, 2013).
    The Immigration Judge's decision relating to the motion, in its present form, does not
    sufficiently explain the reason for the denial of the motion. See Matter of M-P-, 20 l&N Dec. 786
    (BIA 1994) (holding that when a motion to reopen is denied, the Immigration Judge must
    identify and fully explain the reasons for such decision); see also Matter of S-H-, 23 I&N Dec.
    462 (BIA 2002) (holding that, as the Board has limited fact-finding ability on appeal, there is a
    heightened need for Immigration Judges to include in their decisions clear and complete findings
    of fact that are supported by the record and are in compliance with controlling law); see also
    Matter of Avetisyan, 25 l&N Dec. 688, 692-696 (BIA 2012) (holding that Immigration Judges
    may consider administrative closure as a matter of discretion, even where one party does not
    consent, upon consideration of the totality of circumstances and factors such as the reason why
    administrative closure is sought, the basis for opposition to such closure, the likelihood that the

    ==

    #t

    U.. ..:JN.. .424A&JC.

    .&

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

    In re: JORGE PEREZ

    A205 406 702

    ORDER: The decisions of the Immigration Judge of July 25, 2014, are, hereby, vacated.
    FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings
    consistent with this opinion, including consideration of the respondent's motion and his
    application for the privilege of voluntary departure.

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

    respondent will succeed on any pending petition or application for relief, the anticipated duration
    of the closure, the responsibility of either party in contributing to the delay, and the ultimate
    outcome of removal proceedings). As such, we will remand the record to the Immigration Judge
    for the entry of a new decision adjudicating the respondent's motion to administratively close
    proceedings. We express no opinion regarding the ultimate outcome of the respondent's motion
    at the present time. See Matter ofL-0-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 413 (BIA 1996). However, as we deem it
    necessary for the Immigration Judge to enter a new decision adjudicating the respondent's
    motion to reopen, the following orders are entered.

    File: A205-406-702

    July 25, 2014

    In the Matter of

    IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

    JORGE PEREZ
    RESPONDENT
    CHARGES:

    Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the


    Act): an alien who is inadmissible as an alien present in the United
    States without ever being properly admitted or paroled pursuant to
    inspection by an Immigration officer.

    APPLICATIONS:

    Voluntary departure in accordance with Section 240(8) of the Act.

    ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: STEPHANIE HOFFMAISTER


    ON BEHALF OF OHS: GILDA TERRAZAS

    ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE


    The respondent is an adult male, alien native and citizen of Mexico who
    was placed into removal proceedings by the issuance of a Notice to Appear dated July
    14, 2012. That document was served on the respondent on July 14, 2012 and has
    been admitted into the record as Exhibit 1.
    The respondent admitted the allegations contained therein and based
    upon those admissions and the concession of removability, the Court has sustained the
    charge of inadmissibility/removability.

    %4&4.

    .W-4

    .t

    . i

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


    EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
    UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
    TUCSON, ARIZONA

    Following a determination on the charge, respondent designated Mexico


    as the country of removal and there has been no fear expressed in returning there that

    that the respondent is not eligible for any form of relief under Section 208 or for any
    restriction of removal under the Act under Section 241(b)(3) or under the Article 3 of the
    United Nations Convention Against Torture ! and therefore, no application for relief will
    be so considered.
    In addition to Exhibit 1, the Court will consider the following documents.
    Exhibit 2 and 3 are a motion to change venue and an indication of a request to review
    the file.
    Exhibit 4 is an indication of release on bond. Exhibit 5 is the order of the
    Honorable Silvia R. Arellano granting the change of venue to Tucson, Arizona. Exhibit
    6 is notice of hearing for May 30, 2013. Exhibit 7 are the written pleadings of the
    respondent. Exhibit 8 is a motion to continue and extend a filing deadline. Exhibit 8-A
    is a document in support of that. and Exhibit 9 is my order granting that.
    Exhibit 10 is the coversheet of the respondent's documents in support,
    and 10-A is the table of contents of those documents. Exhibit 11 are those documents,
    and they have been admitted into evidence.
    Exhibit 12 is the addendum to respondent's motion to administratively
    close proceeding. And Exhibit 12-A is the coversheet of the table of contents. Exhibit
    12-8 is that document. It has been into evidence.
    13 is the respondent's motion to administratively close the proceedings.
    13-A are the documents in support thereof. They have been admitted into evidence.
    Exhibit 14 is the supplemental addendum to respondent's motion to
    administratively close proceeding. And Exhibit 14-A is the table of contents, coversheet
    A205-406-702

    July 25, 2014

    ,)

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

    may be cognizant under the law, statute. treaty, or regulation. Thus, the Court finds

    thereto. And Exhibit 14-8 is that document, and it has been admitted into evidence.
    Exhibit 15 is the respondent's brief in support of voluntary departure. And

    those documents, and they have been admitted into evidence.


    Exhibit 17 is the Government's opposition to the administrative closure.
    And Exhibit 18, which will be distributed to the parties by mail, is a copy of the Court's
    order indicating that a motion to administratively close proceeding shall be denied as
    not being judicially economical. As indicated in its preamble to the oral decision, the
    Court feels that administrative closure is still of the convenience of the parties and the
    convenience of the Court. In this case, because the Government could immediately
    request that the case be re-calendered and there would be no basis for the Court not to
    do so, the grant of administrative closure is not warranted as being judicially economical
    and will not be done by this Court.
    The respondent is seeking voluntary departure, and the Government does
    not oppose that. The respondent is seeking voluntary departure in the post-conclusion
    mode because the respondent does not want to give up his right to appeal.
    The Court finds that based upon the Government's agreement with the
    Court that the respondent shall be granted voluntary departure, and the Court will do so.
    And the Court therefore will issue the following order.
    ORDERS
    THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED the respondent's application for voluntary
    departure be and hereby is GRANTED;
    THEREFORE IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the respondent shall have until
    the 23rd of September, 2014 to depart the United States or by any extension granted to
    him within the sole expression of the Department of Homeland Security;

    A205-406-702

    July 25, 2014

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

    Exhibit 16 is the table of contents and documents in support thereof. Exhibit 16-A are

    THEREFORE IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall post with


    the Department of Homeland Security a bond in the amount of $500 and that such bond

    THEREFORE IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should respondent fail to


    post that bond in accordance with the deadlines imposed by the Court, the grant of
    voluntary departure shall be terminated and the respondent shall be ordered removed
    from the United States;
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should the respondent not depart the
    United States in accordance with instructions by the 23rd of September 2014, then the
    order of voluntary departure will automatically, by law, become an order of removal to
    Mexico;
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the respondent does not depart as
    instructed by the Court, a civil monetary penalty, and it is up to an amount of $3,000,
    shall apply, and the respondent shall be liable for such;
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should the respondent during the
    pendency of the voluntary departure file a motion to reopen or reconsider, then the
    order of voluntary departure shall not be stayed and the order shall automatically
    become an order of removal to Mexico;
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent must advise the Board of
    Immigration Appeals that he has posted his bond and should the respondent fail to do
    so, then the Board of Immigration Appeals will not allow a voluntary departure reinstated
    following the results on appeal.

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

    shall be posted on or before the 1st of August of 2014;

    Please see the next page for electronic


    signature

    A205-406-702

    .ill

    .ZAJW l_MW4M

    July 25, 2014

    Q&i

    THOMAS MICHAEL O'LEARY


    Immigration Judge

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

    A205-406-702

    July 25, 2014

    /Isl/
    Immigration Judge THOMAS MICHAEL O'LEARY

    A205-406-702

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

    olearyt on November 24, 2014 at 5:00 PM GMT

    July 25, 2014

    You might also like