U.S.

Department of Justice
. \

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board </'Immigration Appeals Qffice <(the Clerk

5/tJ7 /.c,.,f11tr}! l'iA'" S11i1, :?0110 1-idf., Cf111rd1. l'ir;!illia JJll.f I

Jennifer C. Reynolds Law Office of Jennifer Reynolds, P.C.

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - HOU 126 Northpoint Drive, Suite 2020 Houston, TX 77060

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

P 0 Box 630467
. .

Houston, TX 77263

Name: MARTE BLANCO, ALCIDES

A077-888-145

Date of this notice: 2/24/2012

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

Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members: Adkins-Blanch, Charles K.

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Alcides Marte-Blanco, A077 888 145 (BIA Feb. 24, 2012)

U.S. Department of Justice

Eitecutive Office for Immigration Review Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

File:

A077 888 145 - Houston, TX

Date:

In re: ALCIDES MARTE-BLANCO

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDING$

FEB 24 Z0\2

APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF DHS: Jennifer C. Reynolds, Esquire

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Margaret R. Kugel Assistant Chief Counsel

APPLICATION:

Continuance

The respondent, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, appealed the Immigration Judge's decision dated April 19, 2010, denying his request for a continuance pending adjudication ofa Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130) filed by his spouse. The record will be remanded for further proceedings. We review Immigration Judges' findings of fact for clear error, but questions of law, discretion, and judgment, and all other issues in appeals, de novo. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i) and (ii). The Immigration Judge denied the respondent's request for a continuance pending adjudication of a visa petition filed on his behalf by his United States citizen spouse. At the time of the Immigration Judge's denial, a Notice oflntent to Deny the visa petition had been issued by the Field Office Director. Subsequent to the Immigration Judge's decision, the Field Office Director denied the visa petition on September 14, 2010. The petitioner thereafter appealed that denial to the Board. On December 2, 2011, the Board remanded the record to the Field Office Director for further consideration. In view ofthe above, we will remand the record to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and entry of a new decision. Accordingly, the following orders will be entered. ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings

consistent with the foregoing opinion and entry ofa new decision.

Cite as: Alcides Marte-Blanco, A077 888 145 (BIA Feb. 24, 2012)

(:

(
:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRATION COURT Houston, Texas

File A 07 7 888 145

April 19,

2010

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

In the Matter of

ALCIDES MARTE BLANCO, Respondent

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

CHARGE:

APPLICATION:

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Margaret R. Kugel, Esquire

Jennifer Reynolds,

Esquire

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE Respondent is Alcides Marte Blanco, a Notice to Appear dated January 21, 2009. who was served with

The respondent

admitted the allegations contained in the NTA and conceded the charge of removability pursuant to Section 212(a) (6) (A) (i) Act. file, The Court found this, of the

as well as other evidence in the

clear and convincing that the respondent is indeed and so found. The

removable pursuant to the afore-cited Section,

Court designated the Dominican Republic as the country of removal. Respondent subsequently indicated that he would be Some

seeking continuance based on an I-130 application.

)RH continuances were granted in that regard. The case was set f or a further review of the propriety o f these continuances at a hearing on this date, The Court, April 19, 2010.

after hearing from both sides and reviewing some

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

documents presented by both sides,

does not believe that f urther The Court notes that

continuances in this case are warranted.

previous decisions adverse to respondent had been entered with r egard to various I-130 applications. The Court does note that

some approved petitions have existed but were then revoked. Respondent urges that the Court should grant a continuance because one of the grounds relates to the ability of step siblings to marry each other, which was one of the concerns

r aised by the Government previously. At the hearing on April 19, 2010, the Government

pointed out that there were also additional concerns which were raised in the notice of intent to deny, including a child born as

outside of the marriage based on an extramarital relationship,

well as claims by respondent's ex-wif e on other Government forms that she was a single person. The Court recognizes the which are

arguments which have been raised by respondent,

contained in the rebuttal for notice of intent to deny petition, but the Court does not believe that the Government/Service will f ind these arguments persuasive. Instead, the Court believes

that the Service will continue to believe that denial of the petition is appropriate. A 077 888 145 2 April 19, 2010

( \

>RH Respondent also indicated an intent to possibly pursue a waiver under Section 237(a) (1) (H) of the Act. However, the

Court agrees with the arguments made by the Government with regard to this relief, including that it is not available in

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

these circumstances and that there must be a valid adjustment available, and that there is not in this case. As such, the

Court does not believe that this relief is appropriate and will not continue the case to allow such relief to be pursued. ThecMJ forms of relief discussed above were the only relief sought by respondent. previously been established, Therefore, removability having

the Court enters the following order. ORDERS

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent's request for a continuance is DENIED; and

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondent be REMOVED/DEPORTED from the United States to the Dominican Republic based on the allegations and charges sustained in his Notice to Appear. Respondent reserves the right to appeal this decision. Respondent has been advised that any appeal of this decision is due on or before May 19, Dated April 19, 2010. 2010.

CHRIS A. BRISACK Immigration Judge A 077 888 145 3 April 19, 2010

((-

r-
CERTIFICATE PAGE

l
( I

I hereby certify that the attached proceeding

before CHRIS A.

BRISACK in the matter of:

ALCIDES MARTE BLANCO

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

A 077 888 145

Houston,

Texas

was held as herein appears,

and that this is the original

transcript thereof for the file of the Executive Office for

Immigration Review.

Debra R.

Heffron

Deposition Services, Inc. 6245 Executive Boulevard Rockville, Maryland 2085 2 (301) 881-3344

June 8, 2010 (Completion Date)