Khonsari, Niloufar

PANGEA LEGAL SERVICES

350 Sansome Street
Suite 650
San Francisco, CA 94104
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review
Board < Immigration Appeals
Qfce of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike. Smte 2000
Fals Church, Vrginia 20530
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel - DAL
125 E. John Carpenter Fw, Ste. 500
Iring, TX 75062-2324
Name: VENTURA-VENTURA, NELSON A 205-700-837
Date of this notice: 10/15/2014
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Holmes, David B.
Miller, Neil P.
Guendelsberger, John
Sincerely,
DO ca
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
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For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished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: Nelson Ventura-Ventura, A205 700 837 (BIA Oct. 15, 2014)
U.S. Deparent of Justce
Executve Ofc fr Imigaton Review
Decision of te Boad of Imigration Appeals
Fals Clch Virginia 20530
Fie: A205 700 837 - Dala, TX
I re: NELSON VENTURA-VENTURA
I RMOVAL PROCEEDIGS
INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
Date:
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Niloufa Konsa, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS: Paul Hue
Chief Counsel
OCT
l-i20M
Te respondent ha fled a intelocutory appeal fom te hmigation Judge's August 19,
2014, decision deying his moton fr chage of venue. We fd it approprate to exercise ou
jusdiction ove this case ad address te merts of ts appea. I te respondent's April 29,
2014, Moton to Chage venue, he admite te fcal alegations in te Notice to Appea ad
cnceded removability. O June 19, 2014, he submitted fr puoses of lodgng a applicaton
fr asylum, wtholding of removal ad protecton ude te Convention Aganst Torte. See
seons 208 ad 24l()(3) of te Igation ad Natonalit Act, repectively, 8 U.S.C.
1158, 1231()(3); 8 C.F.R. 1208.16(c)(2). Te respondet has aso fled a EOI 42B
Application fr Cancellaton of Reoval wit the U.S. Citieship and Imigaton Seice.
Having appeae fr maste calenda hearngs in Dallas, Texas, he requests that hs case be
scheuled at te Sa Fracisco, Caifria Immigtion Cou in prximity to his residence,
witesses ad attorey of record. Te Dearent of Homelad Secuty has fle a joint motion
in suppor of te respondent's appeal indicatg tey age veue change to San Fracisc is te
prope couse of acton i tese proceeding. We fnd tat good cause has been shown, ad will
gat te moton to chage venue.
Accordigly, te intelocutory appea will be sustaine ad venue tasfere t te
Sa Fracisco Imigation Cour.
ORDER: Te interlocutory appeal 1s sustaned, ad te motion to chage veue to
Sa Frcisco is gnted.
FURTHER ORDER: Te record is remanded to te Immigation Court fr fthe
proceings.
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: Nelson Ventura-Ventura, A205 700 837 (BIA Oct. 15, 2014)
..
( )
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JSTICE
EXCUTIVE OFICE FOR IMIGRATION REVEW
IMIGRATION COURT
DALLAS, TEXS
File: A205 700 83 7








Date: May 28, 2014
In the Matter of:
VENTUR-VENTUR, Nelson In Removal Proceedings
Respondent
CHAGE:
APPLICATION:
Secton 237(a)(l)(C)(i) of the Imigration and Nationalit Act (te Act), as
aended, a a aended, in tat afer admission as a non-immigant uder secion
101 ( a)(l 5) of the Ac you failed to maintain or comply with the conditions of te
non-immigrant stats under which you were admited.
Motion fr Chage of Venue
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: ON BEHAF OF DHS:
Niloufr Khonsari, Esq.
350 Sansome Street, Ste. 650
San Francisco, Califrnia 94104
Paul B. Hunker III, Esq.
Chief Counsel
125 E. John Carpenter Freeway, Ste. 500
Irving, Texas 75062
WRTTEN DECISION OF THE IMMIGRTION JGE
The respondent is a native and citizen of Mexico. He was adited to the United States
at Ledo, Texas on or about a nonimmigat H2R. He filed to maitain
his stats, to wit: as a H2B visa worker he was to be employed by Norhwoods Forest Ic. of
Wisconsin. He filed to maintain employent wt tat company. He also filed to depa the
United States on or befre July 16, 20 He curently resides in Sa Jose, Caifria ad works
fr Taget Stores in Sa Jose, Califra as a independent house painter. Consequently, the
Depament of Homelad Secuity (hereinafe refred to a the goverent) charged the
respondent with removal pursuant to secton 2237(a)(l)(C)(i) of the Immigation ad Nationality
Act (tbe Act), as amended, in that aer admission as a noniigrant under section 10l(a)(l5)
of te Act, he faled to maintin or comply wit the conditions of the non-immigrant status ude
which he was admited. See Notice to Appear.
On April 29, 2014, the respondent fled a motion to change venue to Sa Fracisco,
Califra. In his motion to chage venue, the Respondent admits to the fctul alegations ad
concedes te charge of removal. The Respondent claims that he is wilJ seek reJief fom removal
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
.
'
(
( )
in the fr of a application fr cancellation of removal fr ceran non-penaent residents,
asylum, withholding of removal, ad relief uder the convention against torte.
For the reasons set frth below, te Motion fr Change of Venue wi11 be denied.
LEGAL STANDAR
Venue lies at te Immigration Cou where the chaging document is fled. See 8 C.F.R
1003.20(a). An Immigration Judge, fr good cause, may change venue only upon motion of one
of te paries, ad only afer te other pa has been given notice and a opport to respond
to the motion to chage venue. See 8 C.F.R

1003.20(b). No change of venue shall be ganted

without identifcation of a fxe addess where the respondent may be reahed. See 8 C.F.R

1003.20(c).
It is wthin the soud discreton of the Imigaton Judge t gat a change of venue upon
a showng of good cause. See 8 C.F.R 1003.20(b); see also Chow v. IS, 12 F. 3d 34, 39 (5th
Cir. 1993). Good cause is deterned by balacig te relevat fctors, including admnistative
convenience, expeditious teatent of the cae, location of wtesses, cost of tasporing
wtesses or evidence to a new location, ad factors comonly asocated wt te alien's place
of residence. See Maldonado-Perez v. IS, 865 F. 2d 328 (.C. Cir. 1989); see also La Franca v.
INS, 413 F. 2d 686 (2d Cir. 1969); Mater of Rahman, 20 I&N Dec. 480 (BIA 1992);Mater of
Rivera, 19 I&N Dec. 688 (BI 1 988); Matter o/Velasquez, 19 I&N Dec. 377 (BIA (1986).
Motions to chage venue must be considered on case by case basis. See Baires v. IS, 856 F.2d
89, 91-92 (9t Cir. 1988).
ANALYSIS
Based on severa fctors, ad insufciencies of the Respondent's motion, the Court is
unable to find that a change of venue would be proper in the respondent's case.
Altough the Respondent ha aditted to te fctual allegatons contained on the Notice
to Appea ad conceded to the chage of removal, he has file to demonstre that he is prima
facie eligible fr cancellation of removal fr cerin non-peranent residents, asylu,
withholding of removal or rlief under the convention against torre. In light of te fct that the
Respondent wa admited to the Unted Sttes on or about Febra 1, 20o he has filed to
demonstrate that he has been continuously physical present in the United States fr ten years. In
addition, he has filed to demonstate that he has any qualifing relatives as defned in secton
240A(b )(1) of the Act. Te Respondent has also failed to establsh that he fled an asylu
application wthi one yea of the date of his arval as requied by the Act. Finally, the
Respondent has filed to demonstate prima f acie that he is eligible fr wtolding of removal
or relief under the convention against torure. As a result, a chage of venue would only fher
unnecessary delay removal proceedings.
Te Respondent is under the mistaen belief that his residence in San Fracisco,
Califria is sufcient to establish good cause fr a change of venue. Though ho1ding te
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
..
.,
)
heaing near his residence may be more convenent fr the respondent, his convenience is not
enough to establish "good cause." I is not required that a deporation hearng be at or nea a
alien's place of residence. See Maldonado-Perez, supra at 336.
Additionally, te record does not support that wtnesses' testimony would be crcial to
his case. As such, the Cour fnds tat te Respondent has not shown that he is materially
prejudiced by holding removal proceedings in Dallas rather than Sa Fracisco. The respondent ' s
falure to submit any applcations fr relief wt his motion fr chage of venue would resut in
a unecessar delay and, therefre, outweighs any other consideraton.
Finally, the Cou fnds i its discretion reaonable grouds to deny te request fr change
of venue. See Mater of Chow, supra. (afring tat it is reasonble fr te judge to deny, a a
matte of discretion, a chage of venue where a alien's deportabilit and eligibilit fr relief
remain an issue); see also Matter of Rivera, 19 I&N Dec. 688 (IA 1988). Here, te Court fnds
tat trasfring the respondent's case to te San Francisco Immigation Cour would resut in a
unnecessary delay ad, therefre, outweighs consideration of his location and that of his atorey.
Accordingly, weighing all the fctors relevat to a chage of venue, the Cout does not
fd the fctors weigh in the respondent's fvor, ad terefre, canot fd good cause to tafr
venue to San Fracisco. Instead the Court fnds tat a change of venue at tis stage would only
serve to unecessaly delay the proceedings. As te Board oflmmigration Appeas (the BI)
has held, if the respondent canot establish tat he even appears to be eligible fr relief, then at
tat juncture, "tere is no need fr a chage of venue, as it is then appropriate to issue the order
of [removal]." See Matter of Chow, supra, at 652 (emphasis added).
Having fund no good cause to change venue to Sa Fracisco I igation Cou, the
Cour must deny the respondent' s request fr a chage of venue.
Accordingly, the fllowing order wll be entered:
Date: 29t day of May, 2014
Dallas, Texas
ORER
Immigration Judge
Dallas, Texas
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