Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

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 - OKC

Frager Bush PLLC


4951 Old Greenwood Road
Fort Smith, AR 72903

4400 SW 44th Street, Suite A


Oklahoma City, OK 73119-2800

Name: CASTILLO FARIAS, JESUS

A 201-185-255

Date of this notice: 10/29/2014

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

DOYUtL ca.AA)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members:
Adkins-Blanch, Charles K.
Guendelsberger, John
Manuel, Elise

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Jesus Castillo Farias, A201 185 255 (BIA Oct. 29, 2014)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Bush, Carl

U.S. Department of Justice


Eiecutive Office for Immigration Review.

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Falls Church, Virginia 20530

File:

Date:

A201 185 255 - Oklahoma City, OK

OCT 192014

In re: JESUS CASTILLO FARIAS

APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:

Carl Bush, Esquire

CHARGE:
Notice:

Sec.

212(a)(6)(A)(i), l& N Act [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)] Present without being admitted or paroled

APPLICATION: Continuance; voluntary departure

The respondent appeals from the Immigration Judge's April 3, 2013, decision that ordered
the respondent removed from the United States to Mexico.

On appeal, the respondent argues

that the Immigration Judge incorrectly denied his motion for a continuance and the respondent
also contends that the Immigration Judge improperly foreclosed his request for the privilege of
voluntary departure under section 240B(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
1229c(b). The record will be remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings.
Under 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(d)(3), the Board defers to the factual findings of an Immigration
Judge, unless they are clearly erroneous, but it retains independent judgment and discretion,
subject to applicable governing standards, regarding. pure questions of law and the application of
a particular standard of law to those facts.

We need not consider whether the respondent

established good cause for a continuance of his removal proceeding as the Immigration Judge
incorrectly informed the respondent that he could not pursue post-conclusion voluntary departure

pursuant to section 240B(b) of the Act unless he had articulated some form of relief (Tr. at 47).
Section 240B(b) of the Act does not require that post-conclusion voluntary departure may only
be sought in combination with the pursuit of other relief from removal.

See Matter

25 I&N Dec. 888, 891 (BIA 2012). Accordingly, the following orders will be entered.
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.

FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded for further proceedings.

Cite as: Jesus Castillo Farias, A201 185 255 (BIA Oct. 29, 2014)

of C-B-,

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

In the Matter of

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

JESUS CASTILLO FARIAS


RESPONDENT

CHARGES:

Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i).

APPLICATIONS:

None stated.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: CARL BUSH


Ft. Smith, Arkansas
ON BEHALF OF DHS: JACK D. SPENCER
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE


The respondent is a male native and citizen of Mexico who was issued a Notice
to Appear on May 11, 2011. See Exhibit 1. The respondent appeared with his attorney
at a Master Calendar hearing on March 20, 2012. The 1-213 was marked for
identification as Exhibit 2. The 1-213 was subsequently admitted without objection on
April 3, 2013.
At the hearing on March 20, 2012, the Court granted the respondent's attorney's
request for continuance for attorney prep and reset the case until February 26, 2013.
1

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

April 3, 2013

File: A201-185-255

On February 26, 2013, the United States Immigration Court in Oklahoma City was
closed due to inclement weather. Therefore, the hearing was reset until today's date.

admitted allegations 1 through 4 and conceded the ground of removability under


Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act. The respondent designated Mexico as the country of
removal.
When asked to articulate relief, the respondent's attorney requested a
continuance to wait and see what Congress does with Immigration reform. The Court
finds that that is not good cause to continue a case. The United States Court of
Immigration Appeals has previously told us in Matter of Perez, 19 l&N Dec. 433 (1987),
that good cause for continuance is not demonstrated by requesting a_continuance to
await the result of a collateral event which may occur at some indefinite time in the
future and the outcome of which may or may not be favorable to the respondent.
See and accord the Board's unpublished decision in Matter of Apithy, 2008 WL 2401016
(BIA 2008, unpublished).
It is pure speculation to suggest that this case or other cases pending in the
United States Immigration Court should be continued indefinitely to await the results of
what Congress might do at some point in the future with regard to reforms or changes to
the Immigration laws of the United States.
Counsel for the respondent was asked again to articulate what relief they had,
and he indicated simply they had tno relief and they simply wanted to appeal.
The Court will note that it is unclear exactly what is being appealed. The
respondent's attorney ad m itted and acknowledged proper receipt of the NTA. The
respondent's attorney admitted to the introduction of the 1-213 without objection. The
respondent's attorney admitted allegations 1 through 4. The respondent's attorney

A201-185-255

April 3, 2013

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

On today's date, the respondent again appeared with his attorney of record and

conceded the ground of removability under Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act. The
respondent's attorney chose and designated the country of removal. The respondent's

wanted to appeal.
Therefore, it is unclear exactly what is being appealed other than an appeal
being taken solely for the purposes of delay.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondent be removed from the United
States to the nation of Mexico.
The respondent will be advised of his appeal rights separately on the record.

Please see the next page for electronic


signature
MICHAEL P. BAIRD
Immigration Judge

A201-185-255

April 3, 2013

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

attorney indicated that there was no relief available to this respondent, but yet they

/Isl/
Immigration
bairdm on

Judge

July 1,

MICHAEL
2013

P.

BAIRD

at 1:23

PM GMT

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

A201-185-255

April 3, 2013