Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Enereo Mederos-Sanchez, A205 132 022 (BIA Feb. 3, 2014)

    Uploaded by

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC
    375 views7 pages
    In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded the record to permit the immigration judge to address the applicability of regulations issued after his decision allowing noncitizens to apply for unlawful presence waivers on a provisional basis (Form I-601A). The immigration judge had denied the respondent’s request for a continuance on grounds that the promulgation of regulations was too speculative to warrant a further postponement of proceedings. The decision was written by Member Edward Grant.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded the record to permit the immigration judge to address the applicability of regulations issued after his decision allowing noncitizens to apply for unlawful presence waivers on a provisional basis (Form I-601A). The immigration judge had denied the respondent’s request for a continuance on grounds that the promulgation of regulations was too speculative to warrant a further postponement of proceedings. The decision was written by Member Edward Grant.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    375 views7 pages

    Enereo Mederos-Sanchez, A205 132 022 (BIA Feb. 3, 2014)

    Uploaded by

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC
    In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded the record to permit the immigration judge to address the applicability of regulations issued after his decision allowing noncitizens to apply for unlawful presence waivers on a provisional basis (Form I-601A). The immigration judge had denied the respondent’s request for a continuance on grounds that the promulgation of regulations was too speculative to warrant a further postponement of proceedings. The decision was written by Member Edward Grant.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 7

    Rampersad, Ray

    Rampersad & Parmar Group


    3300 Buckeye Road, Suite 220
    Atlanta, GA 30341
    U.S. Department of Justice
    Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Ofce of the Clerk
    5107 leeburg Pike, Suite 2000
    Fals Church, Vrginia 20530
    OHS
    /
    ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel - ATL
    180 Spring Street, Suite 332
    Atlanta, GA 30303
    Name: MEDEROS-SANCHEZ, ENEREO A 205-132-022
    Date of this notice: 2
    /
    3
    /
    2014
    Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case.
    Enclosure
    Panel Members:
    Grant, Edward R.
    Sincerely,
    Do c O
    Donna Carr
    Chief Clerk
    williame
    Userteam: Docket
    For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
    I
    m
    m
    i
    g
    r
    a
    n
    t

    &

    R
    e
    f
    u
    g
    e
    e

    A
    p
    p
    e
    l
    l
    a
    t
    e

    C
    e
    n
    t
    e
    r

    |

    w
    w
    w
    .
    i
    r
    a
    c
    .
    n
    e
    t
    Cite as: Enereo Mederos-Sanchez, A205 132 022 (BIA Feb. 3, 2014)
    U.S. Department of Justice
    Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review
    Decision of the Board of Immigation Appeals
    Falls Church, Virginia 20530
    File: A205 132 022 - Atlanta, GA
    I re: ENEREO MEDEROS-SANCHEZ
    IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
    APPEAL
    Date:
    ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Ray Rampersad, Esquire
    ON BEHALF OF DHS:
    APPLICATION: Continuance
    Jill K. Kishna
    Assistant Chief Counsel
    FEB 3 1
    Te respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, has appealed fom the July 11, 2012,
    decision of the Immigration Judge denying a continuance. The record will be remanded.
    The respondent sought a contnuance befre the Immigration Court to wait on the passage of
    proposed regulations, proposed by the United States Citizenship and Immigation Serices
    (USCIS), whch would allow him to remain in the United States while pursuing a provisional
    waver of his inadmissibility. The Immigation Judge denied te request based on a
    deterination that the passage of regulations and legislation on the issue was too speculative in
    nature to warat a fer postponement of proceedings.
    Subsequent to the date of the hearing befre the Immigration Judge, regulations concering
    the eligibility of certain immigrants to apply fr a provisional unlawfl presence waiver of
    inadmissibility wre fnalized and becae efective on March 4, 2013. See 8 C.F.R. 212.?(e);
    78 Fed. Reg. 535 (Ja. 3, 2013). We fnd that a remand is waranted to allow the Immigration
    Judge to specifcally address the applicability of te new regulation to the respondent's
    application fr relief and request fr continuance. On remand, the parties should be provided the
    opportunity to present any additional relevant evidence and agument.
    Accordingly, te record will be remanded to the Immigration Judge fr furer proceedings
    consistent with this opinion and fr te entry of a new decision.
    I
    m
    m
    i
    g
    r
    a
    n
    t

    &

    R
    e
    f
    u
    g
    e
    e

    A
    p
    p
    e
    l
    l
    a
    t
    e

    C
    e
    n
    t
    e
    r

    |

    w
    w
    w
    .
    i
    r
    a
    c
    .
    n
    e
    t
    Cite as: Enereo Mederos-Sanchez, A205 132 022 (BIA Feb. 3, 2014)
    UITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRTION REVIEW
    UITED STATES IMMIGRTION COURT
    ATLANTA, GEORGIA
    File: A205-132-022
    In the Matter of
    July 11, 2012
    ENEREO MEDEROS-SACHEZ IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
    RESPONDENT
    CHARGES: Section 212(a) (6} (A} (i} of the Immigration and
    Nationality Act.
    APPLICATIONS: None.
    ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: RAYMOND REMPERSA
    ON BEHALF OF DHS: JO KISHNA
    ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRTION JUDGE
    This case came before the Court as a result of a
    Notice to Appear that was issued by the Department of Homeland
    Security. The charging document alleges that the respondent is
    a native and citizen of Mexico and that he is removable from the
    United States pursuant to Section 212 of the Immigration and
    Nationality Act. The respondent admits the factual allegations
    in the Notice to Appear and concedes removability. In light of
    I
    m
    m
    i
    g
    r
    a
    n
    t

    &

    R
    e
    f
    u
    g
    e
    e

    A
    p
    p
    e
    l
    l
    a
    t
    e

    C
    e
    n
    t
    e
    r

    |

    w
    w
    w
    .
    i
    r
    a
    c
    .
    n
    e
    t
    the foregoing, the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence
    that the respondent is removable from the United States as
    charged. The Court sustains the charge of removal and
    designates Mexico as the country of removal should that become
    necessary.
    Respondent does not have any relief that is presently
    available to him. He asked for a continuance in anticipation of
    a proposed reg that may come down the pike at some point from
    the Department of Homeland Security. Respondent has not
    established a good cause for a further continuance in this case.
    The Court has granted continuances for the hopes that something
    may be more definite for the respondent. In any event, the
    respondent does not want voluntary departure in lieu of
    proceedings and wishes voluntary departure at the conclusion of
    proceedings. The Court will grant the application for voluntary
    departure at the conclusion of proceedings and set bond at
    $5,000. Tne Court will enter the following order in this case.
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent's application for
    voluntary departure be and hereby is granted. Respondent is
    granted voluntary departure up to and including September 10,
    2012, which is 60 days from today, on the posting of a bond of
    $5,000.00 within five business days, with an alternate order of
    removal to Mexico.
    Warning to respondent. Failure to leave the United
    States as required means that you could be removed from this
    A205-132-022 2 July 11, 2012
    I
    m
    m
    i
    g
    r
    a
    n
    t

    &

    R
    e
    f
    u
    g
    e
    e

    A
    p
    p
    e
    l
    l
    a
    t
    e

    C
    e
    n
    t
    e
    r

    |

    w
    w
    w
    .
    i
    r
    a
    c
    .
    n
    e
    t
    country, you may have to pay a civil penalty of between $1,000
    and $5,000, and you will be ineligible for 10 years to come from
    receiving cancellation of removal, adjustment of status,
    voluntary departure, change in non-immigrant status, or relief
    under the registry provisions.
    Respondent is also advised that if he f.ails to depart
    by the deadline, he will be subject to a civil penalty of
    between $1,000 and $5,000.
    Respondent has reserved his right to appeal. The
    deadline for filing an appeal is August 10, 2012. If respondent
    files an appeal, he is hereby advised that he must provide the
    Board of Immigration Appeals within 30 days of filing an appeal
    sufficient proof of having posted the voluntary departure bond.
    The respondent is ,advised that the Board will not reinstate the
    voluntary departure period in its final order if he does not
    submit timely proof to the Board that the voluntary departure
    bond has been posted. If respondent does not appeal and instead
    files a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider during the
    voluntary departure period, he is hereby advised that the period
    allowed for voluntary departure will not be stayed, tolled, or
    extended, the grant of voluntary departure will be terminated
    automatically, the alternate order of removal will take effect
    immediately, but the penalties for failure to depart voluntarily
    will not apply. Finally, the respondent is advised that the
    Court has set the civil monetary penalty for failing to depart
    A205-132-022 3 July 11, 2012
    I
    m
    m
    i
    g
    r
    a
    n
    t

    &

    R
    e
    f
    u
    g
    e
    e

    A
    p
    p
    e
    l
    l
    a
    t
    e

    C
    e
    n
    t
    e
    r

    |

    w
    w
    w
    .
    i
    r
    a
    c
    .
    n
    e
    t
    I
    '
    within the voluntary departure period at the presumptive amount
    of $3,000.
    A205-132-022
    ..

    -- > _ -
    EALE B WILSON
    Immigration Judge
    4 July 11, 2012
    I
    m
    m
    i
    g
    r
    a
    n
    t

    &

    R
    e
    f
    u
    g
    e
    e

    A
    p
    p
    e
    l
    l
    a
    t
    e

    C
    e
    n
    t
    e
    r

    |

    w
    w
    w
    .
    i
    r
    a
    c
    .
    n
    e
    t
    (
    A
    t
    CERTIFICATE PAGE
    I hereby certify that the attached proceeding before JGE
    EALE B WILSON, in the matter of:
    ENEREO MEDEROS-SACHEZ
    A205-132-022
    ATLANTA, GEORGIA
    is an accurate, verbatim transcript of the recording as provided
    by the Executive Office for Immigration Review and that this is
    the original transcript thereof for the file of the Executive
    Office for Immigration Review.
    VICKI LYNE LYTTLE (Transcriber)
    DEPOSITION SERVICES, Inc.
    AUGUST 24, 2012
    (Completion Date)
    I
    m
    m
    i
    g
    r
    a
    n
    t

    &

    R
    e
    f
    u
    g
    e
    e

    A
    p
    p
    e
    l
    l
    a
    t
    e

    C
    e
    n
    t
    e
    r

    |

    w
    w
    w
    .
    i
    r
    a
    c
    .
    n
    e
    t

    You might also like