Oldenburg, Ronald T ., Esq.

Oldenburg Law Ofice

94-229 Waipahu Depot St
#205
Waipahu, HI 96797
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Offce fr Immigration Review
Board of Immigation Appeals
Ofce of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike. Suite 2000
Falls Church, Vrginia 20530
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel - HON
595 Ala Moana Boulevard
Honolulu, HI 96813-999
Name: NEEMIA, FEGAUIAI GAUMATAU A 096-214-416
Date of this notice: 6/9/2014
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Holmes, David B.
Guendelsberger, John
Kendall-Clark, Molly
Sincerely,
Do Ca
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Lulseges
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For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished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: Fegauiai Gaumatau Neemia, A096 214 416 (BIA June 9, 2014)
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review
Falls Church, Virginia 20530
File: A096 214 416 - Honolulu, HI
In re: FEGAUIAI GAUMA TAU NEEMIA
I REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
APPEAL
Decision of the Board oflmmigration Appeals
Date:
JUN 0 9 2014
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Ronald T. Oldenburg, Esquire
APPLICATION: Reopening
This case is presented befre the Board pursuant to an order issued by the United States
Court of Appeals fr the Ninth Circuit.
1
The order granted the Goverment's unopposed
motion to remad to the Board to reconsider our decision dated July 30, 2012, wherein we
a rmed the Immigration Judge's decision denying te respondent's motion to reopen. The
respondent had previously been ordered removed in absentia fr her filure to appea fr the
hearing on May 20, 2011. The appeal will be sustained and the record will be remanded. 2
We review an Immigration Judge's fndings of fct fr clear error, but questions of law,
discretion, and judgment, ad all oter issues in appeals, . are reviewed de novo. 8 C.F.R.
1003.l(d)(3)(i), (ii).
On fher review of the record, we fnd that in considering the totality of the
circumstances, the respondent has demonstrated exceptional circumstances fr her filure to
appear. See Matter of W-F-, 21 l&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996); see also Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d
1037 (9th Cir. 2002); Chete Juarez v. Ashcrof, 376 G.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2004). In the remanded
proceedings, the paies should be given an opportunity to submit evidence, including
testimony, regarding the respondent's application fr relief. We emphasize that our decision to
reopen the proceedings and remand the record does not indicate any opinion as to the proper
outcome of this matter.
1 Fegauiai Gaumatau Neemia v. Ho/de;, No. 12-7266L (9th Cir. fled Sept. 19, 2013).
2 The respondent argues in her brief befre te Board that the Department of Homeland
Security ered in placing her in removal proceedings since her application to become a
permaent resident of the United States had previously been approved by the U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services, and it was never rescinded in accordance with Section 246 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1256. As the Board's fct fnding ability on
appeal is limited, the issues presented by the respondent are appropriate. fr consideration by
the Immigration Judge in the frst instance. See Matter of S-H-, 23 l&N Dec, 462 (BIA 2002).
On remand, te respondent may raise any arguments befre the Imigration Judge in the
reopened proceedings.
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: Fegauiai Gaumatau Neemia, A096 214 416 (BIA June 9, 2014)
, . '1
A096 214 416
Accordingly, the fllowing orders shall be entered.
ORER: The appeal is sustained.
FURTHER ORER: The Boad's July 30, 2012, decision is vacated.
FURTHR ORER: The record is remaded to the I igration Judge fr fther
proceedings consistent with the fregoing opinion ad fr the entry of a new decision.
-
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: Fegauiai Gaumatau Neemia, A096 214 416 (BIA June 9, 2014)