U.S.

Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office ofthe Clerk

5107 l.eesb11rg Pike. Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 22041

TAMERTON R. GRANADOS, ESQUIRE STEVENS & GRANADOS, PLLC 307 N. 3RD STREET, SUITE 3 YAKIMA, WA 98901

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - SEA 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: PEREZ-VENEROS, JOSE ENRIQUE

A095-790-916

Date of this notice: 1/7/2011

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

Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members: Miller, Neil P.

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Jose Enrique Perez-Veneros, A095 790 916 (BIA Jan. 7, 2011)

U.S. Depaent of Justice . Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

File:

A095 790 916 - Seattle, WA

Date:

JAN 0 7 2011

In re: JOSE ENRIQUE PEREZ-VENEROS IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF DHS: Tamerton R. Granados, Esquire

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Robert F. Peck Assistant Chief Counsel

APPLICATION:

Continuance; voluntary departure

The respondent appeals from the decision of an Immigration Judge dated July 14, 2009, granting him the privilege of voluntary departure under section 240B(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229c(b), but denying his request for a continuance. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) opposes the appeal. The record will be remanded for further proceedings and for the entry of a new decision. We review the findings of fact, including the determination of credibility, made by the Immigration Judge under a "clearly erroneous" standard. 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(d)(3)(i). We review all other issues, including whether the parties have met the relevant burden of proof, and issues of discretion, under a de novo standard. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(ii). This matter is subject to the provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005 because the respondent requested relief from removal on July 14, 2009.

See section 240(c)(4) of the Act, 8

U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4).

The respondent conceded removability under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) (l.J. at 1; Tr. at 1; Exh. 1). As relief, the Immigration Judge granted the respondent a 60-day voluntary departure period, conditioned on the posting of a $500 bond (l.J. at 2). Effective January 20, 2009, an Immigration Judge who grants an alien voluntary departure must advise the alien that proof of posting a bond with the DHS must be submitted to the Board within 30 days of filing an appeal, and that the Board will not reinstate a period of voluntary departure in posted. See Matter o/Gamero, 25 l&N Dec. 164 (BIA 2010); 8 C.F.R. 1240.26(c)(3). Although the respondent did not submit timely proof of having paid the bond, the record reflects that the Immigration Judge did not provide the respondent with the required advisals. Therefore, the record will be remanded for the Immigration Judge to grant a new period of voluntary departure and to provide the required advisals.
In light of our remand regarding voluntary departure, we will permit both parties to present additional evidence before the Immigration Judge on the existence of "good cause" for a

its final order unless the alien has timely submitted sufficient proof that the required bond has been

continuance.

See

8 C.F.R. 1003.29, 1240.6.

The Immigration Judge declined to continue

Cite as: Jose Enrique Perez-Veneros, A095 790 916 (BIA Jan. 7, 2011)

A095 790 916

' .

proceedings because the respondent did not have a current priority date; however, the record does not reflect full consideration of the respondent's eligibility for adjustment of status (I.J. at 1-2; Tr. at 2).

See Matter ofHashmi,

24 I&N Dec. 785, 790 (BIA 2009) (the focus of the inquiry in

detennining whether a continuance is warranted in family-based adjustment proceedings is the

likelihood that the adjustment of status application will be granted). Moreover, the record does not indicate that the Immigration Judge granted any prior continuances or that he weighed the impact of denying the current request, the reasonableness of the respondent's conduct, or any inconvenience to the Immigration Court. SeeAhmedv. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012-14 (9th Cir. 2009). Although the respondent is now over age 21, he was 20-years-old at the time of his master calendar hearing and the Immigration Judge stated that the respondent has significant medical issues, including impaired hearing and vision (Tr. at 2; Exhs. 2-3). Thus, we find remand appropriate for the Immigration Judge to balance the relevant factors set forth in Matter ofHashmi, supra, at 790-94, notwithstanding the fact that the visa petition here is not pending because it has been approved. The Immigration Judge also should make clear findings regarding the respondent's removability.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

See Matter ofA-P-, 22 I&N Dec. 468 (BIA 1999); 8 C.F.R. 1240.12.
Accordingly, the following order is entered. ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and for the entry of a new decision.

FOR THE BOARD

Cite as: Jose Enrique Perez-Veneros, A095 790 916 (BIA Jan. 7, 2011)

I '

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRATION COURT 333 South Miami Avenue, Suite 700 Miami, Florida 33130
Noel A. Sinclair COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Lead File

A 097 382 40

Sberna G. Spencer, Esq.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN REMOY AL PROCEEDINGS/ DEPORTATION/ EXCLUSION

DECISION ON A MOTION

A Motion to Reopen have been filed in the above captioned case.

considered and it appears to the Court that:

The Motion has been duly

[ ]

The request is timely and reasonable: be

GRANTED.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion

)<l

The Motion has been duly considered and it appears to the Court that no substantial grounds have Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion be and the

been advanced to warrant its grant.

same is hereby DENIED.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This document was served by: Mail (X ) Personal ( ) To: I (AUen Ii n C/O Custodial Officer (X ) Alien's Attorney [XI OHS DATE: by Court Staff --=S=M=---Attachment: ( I EOIR-28 I I Legal Services List I I Other