U.S.

Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigratio11 Appeals Office ofthe Clerk

5107 leesb11rg Pike, S11ite 2000 Falls Clmrc/1, Virgi11ia 22041

Won Young Oh 4989 Peachtree Pkwy, Suite 222 Norcross, GA 30092

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - ATL 180 Spring Street, Suite 332 Atlanta, GA 30303

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: RAMIREZ-PEREZ, CELESTE

A 205-672-704

Date of this notice: 6/4/2013

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

DOYUtL ca/lA)
Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure Panel Members: Miller. Neil P.

williame Userteam: Docket

Cite as: Celeste Ramirez-Perez, A205 672 704 (BIA June 4, 2013)

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Decision of the Board oflmmigration Appeals

File:

A205 672 704 - Atlanta, GA

Date:

JUN

2013

In re: CELESTE RAMIREZ-PEREZ IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF DHS: Won Young Oh, Esquire

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Kelley N. Sydnor Assistant Chief Counsel

APPLICATION:

Continuance

The respondent has filed an appeal from the Immigration Judge's decision denying the respondent's motion for a continuance and ordering the respondent removed to Mexico. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has filed a motion for summary affirmance. respondent's appeal will be dismissed. We review the Immigration Judge's findings of fact for clear error. discretion and judgment, 1003.l(d)(3)(i), (ii). and all other issues are reviewed
v.

The The

Questions of law, See 8 C.F.R.

de

novo.

Pursuant to the immigration regulations, an Immigration Judge "may U.S.

grant a continuance 'for good cause shown.'" Chacku (11th Cir.2008) (quoting 8 C.F.R. 1003.29).

Att'y Gen.,

555 F.3d 128I, 1285

The Immigration Judge correctly determined that the respondent did not establish good cause for a continuance. The respondent sought a continuance for the purpose of waiting for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjudicate her application for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. However, such an application is separate and apart from the respondent's removal proceedings, and a final order of removal does not prevent the respondent from seeking deferred action. Furthermore, should it become necessary, a request for a stay of removal pending consideration of an application for relief that is before USCIS can be addressed to the DHS. See 8 C.F.R. 241.6(a) and 1241.6(a). As a final matter we note that the respondent makes a number of arguments on appeal concerning her arrest for "DUI" and the Immigration Judge's decision to rely on those charges. In fact, there is no mention of an arrest in the transcript or in the Immigration Judge's decision. The respondent's appeal will be dismissed. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

' 2 iilE O
FOR

B ARD

Cite as: Celeste Ramirez-Perez, A205 672 704 (BIA June 4, 2013)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT ATLANTA, GEORGIA

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

File:

A205-672-704

November 27,

2012

In the Matter of

CELESTE RAMIREZ-PEREZ RESPONDENT

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

CHARGE:

212(a}(6}(A} (i }.

APPLICATION:

Continuance.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF DHS:

JUAN YOUNG OHE, ONYEWUCHI,

ESQUIRE

MORRIS I.

ESQUIRE

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE Res pondent is an adult female, Mexico, native and citizen of

who was placed in removal proceedings with the filing of charging removability

a Notice to Appear with the Court,

pursuant to the provis ions of 212(a}(6} (A) (i} of the INA. Res pondent filed written pleadings acknowledging proper s ervice of the Notice to Appear, conceding removability. admitting the factual allegations and

The s ol e f orm of rel ief reques ted is a continuance for adjudication of a DACA Arrival ) . (Def erred Adjudication of Chil dhood that a Final

Given the provis ion of the DACA program,

Order of Removal by an Immigration Court does not prohibit the granting of the deferred action f or childhood arrival . Court s ees no reas on to continue the proceedings . took the Res pondent's s ubmis s ions (Exhibit 3) The

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

The Court

and f ound as her

Respondent was not el igibl e for cancel l ation of removal , al l egation of arrival, l es s than 10 years

prior to the is s uance

of the Notice to Appear, for s uch rel ief.

would make her s tatutoril y inel igibl e

Res pondent was further ques tioned as to

whether s he wished to appl y f or vol untary departure and counsel decl ined s uch rel ief. Having denied the reques t f or a

continuance and no other appl ication for rel ief before the Court, the Court woul d order removal from the United States to

Mexico on the charge contained in the Notice to Appear.

J.

DAN PELLETIER

Immigration Judge

A205-672-704

November 27,

2012

CERTIFICATE PAGE

I hereby certify that the attached proceeding before JUDGE

J.

DAN PELLETIER,

in the matter of:

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

CELESTE RAMIREZ-PEREZ

A205-672-704

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.

JANETTA L.

NIELSEN

{Transcriber} Inc.

YORK STENOGRAPHIC SERVICES, February 18, 2013

(Completion Date) jln/mab