100%(2)100% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (2 Abstimmungen)
886 Ansichten3 Seiten
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals administratively closed proceedings pending receipt of the appeal record from USCIS and the issuance of a decision on the denial of a Form I-130 filed on the respondent's behalf. The Board stated that the immigration judge erred in denying a request for a continuance based on the denial of the Form I-130 where the the respondent submitted proof that an appeal of the denial was filed with the Board. The decision was written by Vice Chairman Charles Adkins-Blanch.
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals administratively closed proceedings pending receipt of the appeal record from USCIS and the issuance of a decision on the denial of a Form I-130 filed on the respondent's behalf. The Board stated that the immigration judge erred in denying a request for a continuance based on the denial of the Form I-130 where the the respondent submitted proof that an appeal of the denial was filed with the Board. The decision was written by Vice Chairman Charles Adkins-Blanch.
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals administratively closed proceedings pending receipt of the appeal record from USCIS and the issuance of a decision on the denial of a Form I-130 filed on the respondent's behalf. The Board stated that the immigration judge erred in denying a request for a continuance based on the denial of the Form I-130 where the the respondent submitted proof that an appeal of the denial was filed with the Board. The decision was written by Vice Chairman Charles Adkins-Blanch.
204 N. Person Street Raleigh, NC 27601 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk 5107 Leesburg Pike. Suite 2000 Falls Church. Virginia 20530 OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - CHL 5701 Executive Ctr Dr., Ste 300 Charlotte, NC 28212 Name: M H , G ... A -060 Date of this notice: 5/29/2014 Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case. Enclosure Panel Members: Adkins-Blanch, Charles K. Sincerely, DOWtL Ca.AAJ Donna Carr Chief Clerk schw rzA Userteam: Docket For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished I m m i g r a n t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: G-M-H, AXXX XXX 060 (BIA May 29, 2014) U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Falls Church, Virginia 20530 File: 060- Charlotte, NC Date: MAY 2 9 2014 In re: G M H IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Kevin Schroeder, Esquire ON BEHALF OF DHS: Susan Leeker Assistant Chief Counsel APPLICATION: Continuance The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, has appealed from the Im.migration Judge' s decision dated August 1, 2013, denying his request for a continuance and granting his request for voluntary departure. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has filed a motion for summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge's decision. The proceeding will be administratively closed. We review findings of fact, including credibility determinations, under the "clearly erroneous" standard. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i). We review questions oflaw, 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). The Im.migration Judge denied the respondent's motion for a continuance, noting that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had denied the respondent's Form 1-130, Petition for Alien Relative, filed on the respondent's behalf by his United States citizen wife. The Immigration Judge reasoned that the denial of the I-130 was dispositive of the continuance determination. However, the respondent presented evidence that an appeal was filed on the denied I-130 petition (I.J. at 2). Where a non-frivolous appeal has been taken, such a denial is not a final decision and not necessarily dispositive with respect to the question of good cause or prima facie approvability. We note that, as of yet, the appeal, filed in June of2013, has not been forwarded to the Board by the USCIS. Under these circumstances, and given the respondent's apparent eligibility for adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Act, we conclude that administrative closure of these proceedings is warranted until the I-130 appeal is forwarded to the Board and a decision is rendered on the appeal. See Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688, 696 (BIA 2012) (setting forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered when determining whether to administratively close proceedings, including the responsibility of either party in contributing to any current delay, and the ultimate outcome of removal proceedings when the case is recalendared before the Immigration Judge). If either party to this case wishes to reinstate the proceedings, a written request to reinstate the proceedings may be made to the Board. The Board will take no further action in the case 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: G-M-H, AXXX XXX 060 (BIA May 29, 2014) . . 060 unless a request is received from one of the parties. The request must be submitted directly to the Clerk's Office, without fee, but with certification of service on the opposing party. Accordingly, the following order will be entered. ORDER: The proceedings before the Board of hnmigration Appeals in this case are administratively closed.
FOR THE BOARD 2 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: G-M-H, AXXX XXX 060 (BIA May 29, 2014)