Wargo, Holli Beasley, Esq.

Collins 6 Martin, .C.

55 Town Line Road, Third Floor
` : : Wethersfield, CT 06109
Name: CRUZ-BERMEJO, ERICK
.b. 6gBIm60 0Ju8Ic6
Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Ofce of the Clerk
JJ7leeburg Pike. Suite ZJJJ
Fall Church, Vrginia 2JJJJ
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel HAR
. . Box 230217
Hartford, CT 06123-0217
A 205-497 -572
Date of this notice: 12/12/2013
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case.

` . `
.
\
.
___

..." .
!`
| '
Enclosure
|dDul MuDDul5.
Ad

8|anc(

0har|ea.
' . ~ = .. \ . .

l
i
.
Sincerely,
D/ c a
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
yungc
U5uf|udD: Doc-et
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
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
Cite as: Erick Cruz Bermejo, A205 497 572 (BIA Dec. 12, 2013)
CRUZ-BERMEJO, ERICK
A205-97 -572
.b. 6QBIm60I 0Ju8c6
Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Ofce of the Clerk
JJJLeeburg Pike, Suite JJJJ
0ht Lhurch, rgn0 JJJJJ
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel HAR
. . Box 230217
BRISTOL COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE
400 FAUNCE CORNER ROAD
Harord, CT 06123-0217
NORTH DARTMOUTH, MA 02747
Name:_ CRUZ-BERMEJO, ERICK
i
`
. ,

' <
. o _,
A 205-97 -572
Date of this notice: 12/12/2013
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision in the above-refrenced case. This copy is being
provided to you as a coutesy. Your attorey or representative has been served with this
decision pursuant to C.F.R. 1292.S(a). If the attached decision orders that you be
removed fom the United States or afrs an Immigration Judge's decision ordering that you
be removed, any petition fr review of the attached decision must be fled with and received
by the appropriate court of appeals within days of the date of the decision.
| 2.:t / :
' !- ', - & r

& f _
V + -
"
t
' Enclsme
|dDul MuHDul5:
Adkins-Blanch, Charles K.
| I
. .`-...I Ii. l . | . }
`

( }f!:. l , ,', ' ( ' I

Sincerely,
DC c t
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
yungc
U8C|ICam: 0Ckel
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: Erick Cruz Bermejo, A205 497 572 (BIA Dec. 12, 2013)
U.S. 8g8F80I of J08DC8
,xecutive Ofce fr lmigation Review
Decision of te Board of Immigration Appeals
Falls Church, Virginia ZJJ
File: A205 497 572 - Hafrd, CT
In re: ERICK CRUZ BEREJO
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
APPEAL
Date:
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Holli Beasley Wargo, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS: Amit Patel
Assistant Chief Counsel
APPLICATION: Continuance
c I17!J
The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals fom the decision of the Immigration
Judge, dated Juy 17, 2013, denying his request fr a continuance while he pursues
nonimmigrat status under the provisions of section IOl(a)(lS)(U) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. l lOl(a)(lS)(U), befre United States Citizenship and Immigation
Services (USCIS) ad ordering his removal fom this country. The record will be remanded to
the Immigration Judge.
The Board reviews an Immigation Judge's fndings of fct, including fndings as to the
credibility of testimony, under the "clearly erroneous" standard. 8 C.F.R. 1003. l(d)(3)(i). The
Boad reviews questions of law, discretion, and judgment and all other issues in appeals fom
decisions oflmmigration Judges de novo. 8 C.F.R. 1003. l(d)(3)(ii).
Under the circumstances presented in this case, we conclude that it is appropriate to remand
the record to the Immigration Judge fr fher proceedings in order to provide the respondent
with a renewed opportunity to request that these removal proceedings be continued while USCIS
considers his request fr U nonimmigant status. SeeMaaea/Sanche:Sasa,25 I&N Dec. 807
(BIA 2012). Specifcally, on appeal, the respondent has presented evidence that, afer the
respondent's last hearing befre the Immigration Judge, a law enfrcement agency executed a U
Nonimmigrant Status Certifcation (For 1-918, Supplement B) on behalf of "e respondent,
indicating the respondent has cooperated with all requests fom the Ofce of the State's Atorey.
The respondent has also presented a receipt suggesting that his application was delivered to te
USCIS.
We express no opinion regarding the ultimate outcome of these removal proceedings at the
present time and we note that the respondent bears the burden of demonstating "good cause" fr
continuance of these removal proceeding. See8 C.F.R. 1003.29, 1240.6. We fher note
that while, in certain circumstances, a continuance of removal proceedings may be waanted
where an alien is seeking a U visa fom USCIS, a continuance should not be granted where it is
being sought "as a dilatory tactic to frestall the conclusion of removal proceedings." SeeMaae
a/Sanche:Sasasupa, at 815 (BIA 2012). Accordingly, the fllowing order will be entered.
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: Erick Cruz Bermejo, A205 497 572 (BIA Dec. 12, 2013)

A205497572
ORDER: The record is remanded to the Imigration Cou fr fher proceedings consistent
with the fregoing opinion ad fr the ent of a new decision.
Z
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: Erick Cruz Bermejo, A205 497 572 (BIA Dec. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
File: A205-497-572
In the Matter of
July 17, 2013
ERIC CRUZ-BERMEJO
}
)
)
)
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
RESPONDENT
CHARGES: Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act -
present without having been admitted or paroled.
Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act -
not in possession of a valid entry document.
APPLICATIONS: Motion D| Continuance to file a U visa application.
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: MARIA BRiAKEGFIELD
Collins and Martin
55 Town Line Road, Third Floor
Wethersfield, CT 06109
ON BEHALF OF OHS: AMIT PATEL, Assistant Chief Counsel
ORAL DECISION
The respondent admits the allegations in the Notice to Appear that he is a citizen
I of Mexico, who is present without having been admited or paroled. Accordingly, the
Court finds that removability has been established by clear and convincing evidence.
The record reflects that the respondent served the Notice to Appear by an
1
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
6
a
Immigration Oficer on June 6, 2013. He first appeared before the Court on June 19, of
2013. The matter ws reset to July 10, of 2013, fr pleadings. On that date, the
respondent's counsel requested one continuance for the respondent to obtain a law
enforcement certification for a U visa. The Court informed the respondent's counsel that
there would be no more continuances.
The record reflects that the respondent claims he came here when he was 16 in
2002. He has some arrests. It appears that he was arrested in 2008, fr DUI. He was
arrested again in November of 2012 for DUI and was convicted in April of 2013 for DUI
and given six months. execution suspended, . fine. and probation.
The issue is whether, under Matter of Sanchez Sosa, 25 l&N Dec. 807 (BIA
2012), good cause exists to continue removal proceedings ato wait the adjudication of
a U visa application. The first issue is DHS's response to the motion. DHS is opposed.
The other issue is whether the underlying visa petition is prima facie approvable. At this
stage, there is not even a pending visa petition because there is no law enforcement
certifcation. What we have here in Exhibit 5 is a victim letter signed by the State's
Attorney indicating that the respondent was a victim apparently of an assault. Under
Matter of Sanchez Sosa, supra, 814, ordinarily, an alien would not be able to show good
cause for a continuance if the law enforcement certification has not been approved,
absent DHS support or other circumstances that the Immigration Judge finds
compelling. Therefore, the Court finds that there is insuficient evidence at this time that
a U visa petition is prima facie approvable. The other factors are reason for
continuance and other procedural factors. The Court finds two issues. One of the
issues is the fact that the respondent is being detained at Government expense.
Obviously because of that these are expedited proceedings. The respondent's counsel
was given a week to obtain the law enforcement certification. He has been in ICE
A205-497-572 2 July 17, 2013
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
custody for over a month. The other factor is discretion. The respondent does have a
criminal record including two DUl's. The Court does find this to be an adverse factor.
Considering all the factors in Matter of Sanchez Sosa, the Court finds that the
respondent's motion for a continuance to obtain the law enforcement certifcation is
denied. Whether he will actually obtain the certificationget PS BgBR is speculation.
The Court finds there is insuficient basis to continue these proceedings based on the
facts presented to the Court.
Therefre the Court will deny the respondent's request for a continuance. He
has not sought any other relief from removal. Accordingly, the Court must order his
removal to Mexico.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondent's motion for continuance to apply
for a U visa is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent be removed to Mexico.
S08fUf0
PZ4~Z
l08S0 S00 fR0 00XfD80Df 0l00ffD00
MICHAEL W. STRAUS
Immigration Judge
July T, ZJ
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
.9
1
/I
s
//
Immigration Judge MICHAEL.W. STRAUS
strausm on Septemer i2 2J at J:J EM OMT
PZ4-Z JU J, ZJ
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