Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net U.S. Department of .Justice Executive Office for

U.S. Department of .Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office ofthe Clerk

Name: C

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office ofthe Clerk Name: C -T , G I 5107 leesbur g Pike,

-T

,
,

G

ofImmigration Appeals Office ofthe Clerk Name: C -T , G I 5107 leesbur g Pike, Suite

I

5107 leesbur g Pike, Suite 2000

Falls Church, Vir g inia

20530

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - HAR P. 0. Box 230217 Hartford, CT 06123-0217

A

Counsel - HAR P. 0. Box 230217 Hartford, CT 06123-0217 A -791 Date of this notice:

-791

Date of this notice: 5/12/2015

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

Sincerely,

DCYUtL cQ./v\.)

Enclosure

Panel Members:

Holmes, David B.

Donna Carr

Chief Clerk

Panel Members: Holmes, David B. Donna Carr Chief Clerk Userteam: Docket For more unpublished BIA decisions,

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index

Cite as: G-I-C-T-, AXXX XXX 791 (BIA May 12, 2015)

more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index Cite as: G-I-C-T-, AXXX XXX 791 (BIA May 12, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive. Office for Immigration Review

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Falls Church, Virginia 20530 File: 791 - Hartford, CT Date: In re: G I C
Falls Church, Virginia 20530
File:
791 - Hartford, CT
Date:
In re:
G
I
C
-T

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

APPEAL

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:

APPLICATION:

Continuance

Pro se

The respondent, a native and citizen of Honduras, appeals from the Immigration Judge's decision dated April 29, 2014, denying his request for a continuance of proceedings. The record will be remanded.

The respondent sought a continuance to pursue Special Immigrant Juvenile Status. In denying the continuance and ordering the respondent's removal to Honduras, the Immigration Judge noted that a previous filing with a Connecticut probate court had been withdrawn, and that nothing else had been filed. On appeal, the respondent has submitted evidence that on May 23, 2014, a probate court case was initiated against the respondent's father in a Connecticut court. Given this new and previously unavailable evidence, we find that a remand to the Immigration Judge is appropriate. Accordingly, the following order will be entered.

ORDER:

The

record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for

further proceedings

consistent with this opinion and for the entry of new decision.

with this opinion and for the entry of new decision. FOR THE BOARD Cite as: G-I-C-T-,

FOR THE BOARD

Cite as: G-I-C-T-, AXXX XXX 791 (BIA May 12, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT

File: A -791 In the Matter of: G I C
File:
A
-791
In the Matter of:
G
I
C

RESPONDENT

-T

,
,

April 29, 2014

)

)

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

)

)

CHARGE:

Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; present without having been admitted or paroled.

APPLICATION:

Motion for continuance to file a petition with probate court.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:

Helen Macelli International Institute of Connecticut 670 Clinton Avenue Bridgeport, CT 06605

I ON BEHALF OF DHS:

Courtney Gates-BGrason Assistant Chief Counsel

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

Chief Counsel ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE The record reflects that the respondent was served

The record reflects that the respondent was served with the notice to

appear in October of 2012.

The respondent admits the allegation in the notice to

appear-:-that- M.be is a citizen of Honduras:-who�ls present without having been admitted

or paroled.

Accordingly, the court finds that removability has been established by clear

and convincing evidence.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net The record also reflects that the respondent failed

The record also reflects that the respondent failed to appear in court on

May 14 th of 2013.

But these proceedings were subsequently reopened.

The court reviewed the 1-213.

It reflects that 1he respondent was born in

Honduras on January 1s t of 1998.

On the one hand.:. it says that he was going to live

with an uncle named Hector Cordova [phonetic], but then he contacted his father, also

Hector Cordova [phonetic].

It appears that thafs been asorne -confusion in that the

person he was coming to see was his father.

that he was living with his aunt in Honduras.

He states that the told the Border Patrol

The respondent informed the court that his

mother had died.

When was the released from OHS custody, he was released to the

custody of his father.

The record also reflects that the father paid for the respondenfs

journey to the United States.

The court also reviewed the motion to reopen. It includes an affidavit from

reviewed the motion to reopen. It includes an affidavit from his#le father with whom the respondent

his#le father with whom the respondent has been residing since he came to the United

States.

He states that it was his error that the respondent did not come to court and

indicated that it was not the respondenfs fault.

There's also a letter from his father

indicating that his father requested the day off from work.

The record also reflects that the respondent had a case in the probate

court withdrawn for unknown reasons.

There was a hearing on January 4 th .

The matter

was then continued for today.

It was represented to the court that there would be

something filed with the probate court in a few weeks.

However, nothing has been filed.

The issue is whether the matter should be continued again in the exercise

of discretion.

The court reviewed the factorsmatter set forth in Matter of Hashmi, 24 l&N

e r o f H a s h m i , 2 4 l & N
Dec. 785 (BIA 2009). A -791
Dec. 785 (BIA 2009).
A
-791

OHS is opposed to the motion to continue.

2

There were 9tftef

April

29,

2014

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net questions raised about whether the underlying visa petition

questions raised about whether the underlying visa petition is prima facie approvable.

That is unknown. neglected. procedural factors.
That is unknown.
neglected.
procedural factors.

The court would note that a prior petition was withdrawn.

But the

other issue is frankly whether the respondent then has truly been abandoned or

It appears that the father has paid for the respondent's journey to the United

-te--eehe

is a responsible parent.

The

to the United -te--eehe is a responsible parent. The States, and it appears.:. looking at the

States, and it appears.:. looking at the motion to reopen

The court has real doubts about whether the respondent could meet that burden.

other issue is whether he merits a favorable exercise of discretion andffi other relevant

It appears the respondent was given time to file the petition with the

The court

probate court several months_§g_Q-;- and apparently that has not happened.

finds that the respondent has been given adequate time after the motion to reopen was

granted.

Considering all the factors in their entirety, the court will deny the motion in

the exercise of discretion.

The respondent has not applied for nor does appear to be eligible for any

other relief from removal including post merits voluntary departure.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the respondent's motion to continue is

denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the respondent be removed to

Honduras.

motion to continue is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the respondent be removed to Honduras.

791

3

April

29,

motion to continue is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the respondent be removed to Honduras.

2014

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net signature A205-722-791 � ' ,I Please see the
signature
signature

A205-722-791

� ' ,I Please see the next page for electronic
'
,I
Please see the next page for electronic

MICHAEL W. STRAUS Immigration Judge

4

April

29,

2014

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net . . \ • I f' /Isl/ Immigration

.

.

\

I f'
I
f'

/Isl/

Immigration

Judge

MICHAEL

W.

STRAUS

strausrn

on

September

9,

2014

at

8:50

PM

GMT

 
 

A

 

-791

5

April

29,

2014

on September 9, 2014 at 8:50 PM GMT   A   - 7 9 1 5