J-A-H-M-, AXXX XXX 192 (BIA Sept. 1, 2016)
U.S.
Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Office ofthe Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suile 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 2204/
Name: H
OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - ATL
180 Ted Turner Dr., SW, Ste 332
Atlanta, GA 30303
MJ
Date of this notice: 9/1/2016
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,
DQnftL ctVvu
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Greer, Anne J.
Userteam: Docket
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit
www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
Cite as: J-A-H-M-, AXXX XXX 192 (BIA Sept. 1, 2016)
Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net
Velasquez, Amy Lynn
Velasquez Law Group, LLC
500 Old Bremen Rd., Suite 105
Carrollton, GA 30117
U.S. Department of Justice
Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
. Executive Office for Immigration Review
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
Date:
File: 192 - Atlanta, GA
SEP - 1 2016
APPEAL AND MOTION
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:
ON BEHALF OF DHS:
Amy L. Velasquez, Esquire
Sirce E. Owen
Assistant Chief Counsel
APPLICATION: Continuance; remand
The respondent, a native and citizen of Honduras, appeals from the Immigration Judge's
decision dated February 18, 2015, denying his request for a continuance and ordering him
removed from the United States. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) opposes the
appeal.
While the appeal was pending, the respondent filed evidence that the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services approved his visa petition for classification as a special
immigrant juvenile (Form 1-360), which we construe as a motion to remand. See 8 C.F.R.
204.1 l(a), (d)(2)(i). The DHS did not file a response to the motion.
As the facts underlying the respondent's eligibility for relief from removal have changed
during the pendency of the appeal, we will remand the record for the Immigration Court to
consider in the first instance the new evidence filed on appeal and any other applications for
relief, and any response from the DHS. Because the record will be remanded, we will not
address the respondent's appellate arguments. The following orders will be entered.
ORDER:
vacated.
The Immigration Judge's February 18, 2015, decision and removal order are
FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Court for further
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for entry of a new decision.
Cite as: J-A-H-M-, AXXX XXX 192 (BIA Sept. 1, 2016)
Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
File: ,__192
February 18, 2015
In the Matter of
M..
RESPONDENT
)
)
)
)
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
CHARGES:
Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the INA, as amended, in that he is an
alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled
or who entered into the United States at any time or place other
than as designated by the Attorney General.
APPLICATIONS:
Motion to continue.
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: AMYL. VELASQUEZ, ESQUIRE
500 OLD BREMEN ROAD
CARROLLTON, GEORGIA 30117
ON BEHALF OF OHS: SIRCE OWENS, ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
180 SPRING STREET SOUTHWEST, 3RD FLOOR
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE
The respondent is a juvenile, male native and citizen of Honduras who
was issued a Notice to Appear on March 26, 2013. See Exhibit 1. At a master calendar
hearing held on today's date, the respondent appeared represented by counsel and
Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
tendered written pleadings. See Exhibit 2. He admitted all four allegations, conceded
the charge on 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and declined to designate. The Court directed Honduras
removability to be established. See Section 240(c)(1)(A) of the Act. Issue before the
Court concerns the respondent's motion for a continuance.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
As stated, this case came to the Court on a Notice to Appear of March 26,
2013. On today's date the respondent appeared, represented by counsel. This is not
the first appearance for the respondent, however. He has appeared on at least on what
appears to be on two occasions. Once in June of 2013, that has been plenty of time to
get anything filed. In any event, on today's date the respondent's counsel is moving to
continue the matter in order for some relief outside of this agency be pursued. I have
no evidence that there is anything to be pursued outside of the Court. And in fact, the
respondent's counsel has indicated that she cannot provide anything related to a
dependency order because, well, apparently she believes that this is protected
information. The Court cited to Georgia code 49-5-41, relative to documents concerning
children does specifically indicate that the agency, such as this one, does fall within the
exclusion of the documents that agencies that should have reasonable access to
records. In this particular case the respondent is asking me to rule on a motion to
continue. As we all know, motion to continue needs to be pursued for good cause.
have nothing in my file to show that there is anything that is going on outside this
agency that would allow this respondent to become eligible for any form of relief. That
being said, the motion to continue is denied, and there being no applications for relief
192
February 18, 2015
Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net
as the country of removal in the event that does become necessary and found
the respondent is ordered removed to Honduras on the charges contained in Notice to
Appear.
Please see the next page for electronic
signature
192
MADELINE GARCIA
Immigration Judge
February 18, 2015
Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net
February 18, 2015
' .
//s//
Inunigration Judge MADELINE GARCIA
192
Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net
garciarna on April 30, 2015 at 1:49 PM GMT
February 18 1 2015
