Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

U.S.

Department of Justice

.-

Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suile 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 22041

LOYA-TERRAZAS, JESUS 09280-032/A01 0-544-171 ADAMS CTY. CORRECTION. CENTER P.0. BOX 1600 WASHINGTON, MS 39190

DHSIICE Office of Chief Counsel OAK P.O. Box 1128 Oakdale, LA 71463-1128

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: LOYA-TERRAZAS, JESUS

A 010-544-171

Date of this notice: 11/26/2012

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

DoYutL CWvV
Donna Carr Chief Clerk Enclosure
Panel Members: Pauley, Roger

Userteam: Docket

Cite as: Jesus Loya-Terrazas, A010 544 171 (BIA Nov. 26, 2012)

U.S. Department of Justice


Executive Office for Immigration Review
Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

File: A010 544 171- Oakdale, LA

Date:

NQV, J 82012

In re: JESUS LOYA-TERRAZAS a.k.a. Jesus Terrazas Loya

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Prose ON BEHALF OF DHS: Sherron Ashworth Assistant Chief Counsel

CHARGE: Notice: Sec. 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)] Convicted of aggravated felony Sec. 237(aX2)(B)(i), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i)] Convicted of controlled substance violation APPLICATION: Termination of proceedings

The respondent is a native and citizen of Mexico who was admitted as a lawful permanent resident in 1956. In a decision dated July 17, 2012, an Immigration Judge sustained charges of removability against the respondent under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), as an aggravated felon as defined in section 101(a)(43)(B) and (U) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 110l(a)(43)(B) and (U), as well as under section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, but did not sustain a charge of removability under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act, relating to an aggravated felony as defined in section 10l(a)(43)(D) of the Act. The Immigration Judge determined that there was no relief available to the respondent and ordered him removed to Mexico. The respondent filed a timely appeal. Under 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3), the Board defers to the factual findings of an Immigration Judge, unless they are clearly erroneous, but it retains independent judgment and discretion, subject to applicable governing standards, regarding pure questions of law and the application of a particular standard of law to those facts. Upon review, we conclude that the Immigration Judge's findings of fact are free of clear error. 8 C.F.R. l003.l(d)(3), supra. Based on the Immigration Judge's findings of fact, we

Cite as: Jesus Loya-Terrazas, A010 544 171 (BIA Nov. 26, 2012)

AOlO 544 171


conclude upon de novo review that the Department of Homeland Security met its burden of proof to establish that the respondent is removable from the United States. The respondent argues on appeal there was a due process violation because he was not allowed to access court in a proper manner due to an incident at the detention facility. He states he was precluded from law access at the facility, and that there were serious violations of constitutional law and civil rights violations. The respondent's assertions are completely conclusory, in that no specifics whatsoever are provided. For this reason, we are unable to specifically assess the respondent's claims. However, we have reviewed the record and conclude that the Immigration Judge's conduct at the hearing and the Immigration Judge's decision provide no sign of bias or of any action or inaction which might have led to the respondent being provided a less than full and fair hearing. With respect to the respondent's complaints about the detention facility, we point out that we have no jurisdiction over the supervision of detention facilities. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.1. While we do have jurisdiction to issue an order of remand to allow a respondent a further opportunity to develop a record where such an opportunity was impeded by circumstances arising at a detention facility, the respondent has provided us no specific basis on which to take such an action in this case. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that there is no basis on which to sustain the current appeal. The following order will be entered. ORDER: The respondent's appeal is dismissed.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

2
Cite as: Jesus Loya-Terrazas, A010 544 171 (BIA Nov. 26, 2012)


File: AOl0-544-171 In the Matter of
) ) )

July 17, 2012

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT OAKDALE, LOUISIANA

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

JESUS LOYA-TERRAZAS RESPONDENT

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

CHARGES:

Section 237(a) (2) (A) (iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in Section 101(a) (43) (U) of the Act (underlying ground 101(a) (43) (B) of the Act); Section 237(a) (2) (B) (i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as an alien convicted of a controlled substance violation.

APPLICATION:

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: PRO SE ON BEHALF OF DHS: SHERRON ASHWORTH, Assistant Chief Counsel 1010 E. Whatley Road Oakdale, Louisiana 71463

DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY He was

The respondent is a native and citizen of Mexico.

admitted into the United States at El Paso, Texas, April 26, 1956, as a lawful permanent resident. Respondent was convicted


States Code Section 846, 841(b) (1) (A). and 1956 (a) (1) (B).

He was also convicted on

December 19, 2005, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 United

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

that same date, in the same court for conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 United States Code Section 1956(h)

Removal proceedings commenced at the issuance of a Notice to Appear dated April 27, 2012 (Exhibit 1). Appear
~as

The Notice to The initial Respondent The case was

filed with the Court May 11, 2012.

Master Calendar hearing conducted June 20, 2012. requested an opportunity to look for an attorney. reset to July 17, 2012.

Respondent was specifically advised

that if he did not have an attorney at the next hearing that the case would go forward. He was also advised that he should bring

any papers or documents that he might want the Court to consider. When the case resumed May 17, 2012, respondent appeared without counsel and the matter proceeded to the pleadings. respondent admitted the factual allegations. The Department Based on The

offered into evidence conviction records (Exhibit 2).

the admissions of the respondent, as well as the conviction records, the Court finds that the respondent is deportable as charged under Section 101(a) (43) (U) of the Act as it relates to the underlying Section 101(a) (43) (B). The respondent's

A010-544-171

July 17, 2012


Substance Act of the United States. States Code Section 924(c) (2).

As such, the conviction

conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana is a felony violation of the Controlled

meets the definition of a drug trafficking crime under 18 United The Court also finds that the

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

respondent's conviction is a violation of the controlled substance laws of the United States, rendering him deportable under Section 237(a) (2) (B) (i) of the Act. I find that

deportability on these charges has been established by evidence which is clear and convincing. As to the charge under Section 237(a) (2) (A) (iii) of the Act as it relates to Section 101(a) (43) (D) of the Act the Court did not sustain that charge. any amount of loss. The Notice to Appear does not indicate

In addition the documents presented by the

Department consisted of a judgment in the criminal case only. The judgment does not indicate any loss or restitution on page five. The respondent declined to designate a country for removal. The Court designated his native country of Mexico. As the

respondent's offense is an aggravated felony and also a particularly serious crime as defined in Section 24l(b) (3) (B) (ii) of the Act, it barred most relief under the Immigration Act. That includes asylum under Section 208,

withholding of removal under Section 241(b), cancellation of removal for permanent residents pursuant to Section 240A(a) of

A010-544-171

July 17, 2012


the Act. 240B of the Act. the Act in conjunction with any waiver. Convention against Torture.

The offense as a

It also bars voluntary departure pursuant to Section Any adjustment of status under Section 245 of

particularly serious crime also barred withholding under the

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

The respondent would remain eligible for deferral of removal under the Convention against Torture, however, the respondent testified that he had no fear of being tortured by the government or government officials of Mexico should he return there. Therefore that relief is unavailable to him. CONCLUSION The Court finds that the respondent is a native and citizen of Mexico subject to removal from the United States because of his December 19, 2005 convictions in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana. there is no relief available to the respondent the following order is hereby entered. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondent be removed from the United States to Mexico based upon the charge contained in the Notice to Appear. As

AGNELIS L. REESE Immigration Judge

AOl0-544-171

July 17, 2012


CERTIFICATE PAGE AGNELIS L. REESE, in the matter of: JESUS LOYA-TERRAZAS A010-544-171 OAKDALE, LOUISIANA

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

I hereby certify that the attached proceeding before JUDGE

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.

LINDA DOCK (Transcriber) FREE STATE REPORTING, Inc. OCTOBER 7, 2012 {Completion Date)