Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 964 views

    Dirav Dolatbhai Patel, A201 183 819 (BIA Sept. 15, 2017)

    Uploaded by

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC
    In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reopened proceedings sua sponte in light of a letter issued by USCIS stating that the respondent met the legal requirements for U-1 nonimmigrant status although a visa was not yet available due to the annual quota. The Board remanded the record to consider whether to terminate proceedings without prejudice. The decision was issued by Member Edward Grant.

    Copyright:

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

    Dirav Dolatbhai Patel, A201 183 819 (BIA Sept. 15, 2017)

    Uploaded by

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC
    964 views8 pages
    In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reopened proceedings sua sponte in light of a letter issued by USCIS stating that the respondent met the legal requirements for U-1 nonimmigrant status although a visa was not yet available due to the annual quota. The Board remanded the record to consider whether to terminate proceedings without prejudice. The decision was issued by Member Edward Grant.

    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    In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reopened proceedings sua sponte in light of a letter issued by USCIS stating that the respondent met the legal requirements for U-1 nonimmigrant status although a visa was not yet available due to the annual quota. The Board remanded the record to consider whether to terminate proceedings without prejudice. The decision was issued by Member Edward Grant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    964 views8 pages

    Dirav Dolatbhai Patel, A201 183 819 (BIA Sept. 15, 2017)

    Uploaded by

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC
    In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reopened proceedings sua sponte in light of a letter issued by USCIS stating that the respondent met the legal requirements for U-1 nonimmigrant status although a visa was not yet available due to the annual quota. The Board remanded the record to consider whether to terminate proceedings without prejudice. The decision was issued by Member Edward Grant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 8
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The document discusses a Board of Immigration Appeals case related to a request for continuance from an immigration judge. It provides details of the respondent's case, arguments made, and the judge's decision.

    The respondent was requesting a continuance of the case for 6 months in hopes that immigration policy from the administration would change to potentially allow them to remain in the country.

    The immigration judge denied the request for continuance because it was based on speculation about potential future changes to immigration policy rather than establishing good cause. The judge noted cases had already been pending for years.

    U.S.

    Department of Justice

    Executive Office for Immigration Review

    Board ofImmigration Appeals


    Office ofthe Clerk

    5107 leesburg Pike, SuiJe 2000


    Falls Church, Virginia 22041

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


    Rios, Arturo Rafael DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - ELP
    Law Office of Arturo R. Rios, P.A. 11541 Montana Ave, Suite 0
    2929 Fifth Avenue North El Paso, TX 79936
    Saint Petersburg, FL 33713

    Name: PATEL, DIRAV DOLATBHAI A 201-183-819

    Date of this notice: 9/15/2017

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

    Sincerely,

    Cynthia L. Crosby
    Deputy Chief Clerk

    Enclosure
    Panel Members:
    Grant, Edward R.

    Userteam: Docket

    For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit


    www.irac.net/unpublished/index

    Cite as: Dirav Dolatbhai Patel, A201 183 819 (BIA Sept. 15, 2017)
    U.S. Department of Justice

    Executive Office for Immigration Review

    Board ofImmigration Appeals


    Office of the Clerk

    5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000


    Falls Church, Virginia 2204 I

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


    PATEL, DIRAV DOLATBHAI DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - ELP
    A201-183-819 11541 Montana Ave, Suite O
    c/o IRWIN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER El Paso, TX 79936
    132 COTTON DRIVE
    OCILLA, GA 31774

    Name: PATEL, DIRAV DOLATBHAI A 201-183-819

    Date of this notice: 9/15/2017

    Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision in the above-referenced case. This copy is being
    provided to you as a courtesy. Your attorney or representative has been served with this
    decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1292.S(a). If the attached decision orders that you be
    removed from the United States or affirms an Immigration Judge's decision ordering that you
    be removed, any petition for review of the attached decision must be filed with and received
    by the appropriate court of appeals within 30 days of the date of the decision.

    Sincerely,

    J
    u
    ,')

    /l
    ._,

    Cynthia L. Crosby
    Deputy Chief Clerk

    Enclosure
    Panel Members:
    Grant, Edward R.

    Userteam:

    Cite as: Dirav Dolatbhai Patel, A201 183 819 (BIA Sept. 15, 2017)
    : . u.s.. Department of Justice Decision of t}le Board of Immigration Appeals
    ' Executive Office for Immigration Review

    Falls Church, Virginia 22041

    File: A201 183 819 - El Paso, TX Date:


    SEP 1 5 2017

    In re: Dirav Dolatbhai PATEL

    IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

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


    APPEAL

    ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Arturo Rafael Rios, Esquire

    ON BEHALF OF DHS: Judith F. Bonilla


    Assistant Chief Counsel

    APPLICATION: Continuance

    Pursuant to our authority at 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(a) (2017), providing that the Board may at any
    time reopen or reconsider on its own motion any case in which it has rendered a decision, we will
    reopen this matter sua sponte and remand the record to the Immigration Judge for the limited
    purpose of determining if termination of proceedings without prejudice is warranted.

    This matter was last before the Board on November 23, 2015, when we dismissed an appeal
    of an Immigration Judge's order, dated May 19, 2014, denying the respondent's motion for a
    continuance. Subsequent to that order, the respondent filed a motion to reopen with the
    Immigration Judge. The motion was incorrectly characterized as a motion to reopen an in absentia
    order issued by an Immigration Judge. The Immigration Judge, in a decision dated May 4, 2017,
    pointed out in a footnote that the motion was not a motion to reopen an in absentia order, but rather
    a motion to sua sponte reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. 1003.23(b )(1). See Immigration Judge
    Decision, May 4, 2017, at 2, n. 1. The Immigration Judge denied the motion on the basis that the
    asserted fact that the respondent had a pending U visa application with USCIS did not amount to
    an exceptional or compelling circumstance that would justify reopening his removal proceedings.
    See Immigration Judge Decision, May 4, 2017, at 2, citing Matter of G-D-, 22 I&N Dec. 1132,
    33-34 (BIA 1999). The respondent filed a timely appeal.

    Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the respondent filed an "Emergency Motion to Remand,"
    asserting that, on July 26, 2017, the USCIS informed him that he had met all the requirements to
    be granted U-1 non-immigrant status. 1 The "information letter" submitted as Exh. B indicates that
    the sole reason the respondent was not granted the status in question immediately is the "fiscal
    year limits." Letter from USCIS, St. Albans, Vermont, dated July 26, 20 I 7. The respondent noted
    that the Immigration Judge had stated that the type of evidence the respondent now presents -
    essentially, an approved U visa - would reflect a "compelling" reason for sua sponte reopening.
    Immigration Judge Decision, May 4, 2017, at 2.
    1 To the extent that the respondent has now filed a motion with the Board, the question of whether
    the Immigration Judge had jurisdiction over the motion to reopen sua sponte, filed with the
    Immigration Court is now moot. 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(a); 8 C.F.R. 1003.23(b)(l) (Immigration
    Judge lacks jurisdiction to sua sponte reopen a case where the jurisdiction is vested with the Board).
    Cite as: Dirav Dolatbhai Patel, A201 183 819 (BIA Sept. 15, 2017)
    A201 183 819

    In opposing the appeal from the Immigration Judge's decision, the DHS cited to Matter of
    Yauri, 25 l&N Dec. 103, 110 (BIA 2009), for the proposition that the Board will not reopen
    proceedings of respondents under a final removal order where reopening is sought as a mechanism
    to stay a final order of removal while a collateral matter (over which the Board has no jurisdiction)
    is being resolved. We note that in Matter ofYauri, in addition to denying the respondent's request

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


    to reopen sua sponte, we also, on the facts presented, granted a DHS motion to terminate without
    prejudice. Id at 112. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that Matter of Yauri is
    distinguishable. Furthermore, we are reopening and remanding for the sole purpose of determining
    if termination of proceedings without prejudice is warranted.

    In sum, in the present case, we conclude that reopening and remand of the record to allow the
    Immigration Judge to determine if termination of proceedings without prejudice is appropriate is
    warranted by the compelling circumstances presented.

    ORDER: The Board's order dated November 23, 2015, is vacated.

    FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded tcH:le Immigration Judge forfurther proceedings
    consistent with the above decision and the entry of a 11 w order.

    R, FOR THEBO

    2
    Cite as: Dirav Dolatbhai Patel, A201 183 819 (BIA Sept. 15, 2017)
    ( ( ( (

    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


    EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
    UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
    EL PASO, TEXAS

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


    Files: A201-183-819/820/821 May 19, 2014

    In the Matters of

    )
    DIRAV DOLATBHAI PATEL (Lead) ) IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
    SHWETA DIRAV PATEL )
    LEKHAN DIRAV PATEL )
    )
    RESPONDENTS )

    CHARGES: 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act - visa overstay;


    and Section 237(a)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act -
    failure to comply with conditions of nonimmigrant status.

    APPLICATION: None.

    ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: KEN LEVINE

    ON BEHALF OF DHS: BRENDA THOMAS

    ORAL DECISION AND ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE


    On May 19, 2014, all three respondents appeared before the Court for a Master

    Calendar hearing, previously scheduled. Pleadings had been taken and the charges of

    removal had been sustained since August 19, 2013. On that date, respondents

    appeared before this Court, with counsel, and admitted the factual allegations in the

    Notice to Appear, conceding removability as charged (Exhibit 1 ). Based upon the

    1
    , I
    ( ( (

    admission and concessions, this Court is satisfied that removability has been
    established in each case by clear and convincing evidence. Woodby v. INS,

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


    385 U.S. 276 (1976).
    Prior to today's hearing, respondent's counsel had filed a motion for continuance.
    That motion had been received by the Court on March 24, 2014. Simply stated, the

    motion asks that the Court continue this cause for another six months beyond today's

    date in the hopes that the Administration would curtail removals from this country. The
    motion alleges that the respondents are in a position to take advantage of any such

    curtailment of policy by the present Administration.

    The Court notes that requests for continuance are governed by 8 C.F.R.

    1003.29. The regulation requires that the movant establish good cause for any

    requested continuance. As noted, the cause advanced for the extended continuance
    was the expectation or hope that the present Administration might change their present
    removal policy.

    The Court notes that any such motion is based almost entirely upon speculation

    with respect to what action, if any, the present Administration might take regarding its

    policy towards deportation and removal. The respondents in each case conceded their

    removability (Exhibit 1). Further, in open curt, counsel again reiterated that the

    respondents were not eligible for relief and were not requesting relief. In the absence of

    a continuance, respondent's counsel requested an order of removal for each of the


    respondents.
    Since it is impossible to determine what action, if any, the executive branch may
    take in the future, the Court cannot continue these cases for a period of six months
    based. upon hope and speculation that present policy may change. Since good cause
    was not established, the request for a continuance was denied.

    A201-183-819/820/821 2 May 19, 2014


    ( ( ( (

    The Court also notes that on August 19, the respondents had requested a
    continuance until December 2 to enable them to explore relief and determine whether

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


    the Office of Chief Counsel would agree to close the cases based upon their
    prosecutorial discretion.
    When discretion was not granted, the Court granted a further continuance from

    December 2 until May 19 of this year to enable the respondents to file any and all

    applications for relief. Consequently, all cases had been pending before the Court since
    August 29, 2011. Good cause not having been established, the Court proceeded to

    order removal to India based upon the charges contained in the Notice to Appear.

    ORDERS OF THE COURT

    The request by the respondents for a further continuance is hereby DENIED.

    The respondent's are ordered removed to India upon the charges contained in
    their respective Notice to Appear.

    Please see the next page for electronic


    signature
    THOMAS C. ROEPKE
    Immigration Judge

    A201-183-819/820/821 3 May 19, 2014


    ( ( ( (

    /Isl/
    Immigration Judge THOMAS C. ROEPKE
    roepket on August 19, 2014 at 3:44 PM GMT

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

    A201-183-819/820/821 4 May 19 1 2014

    You might also like