Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
A 039-258-200
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,
DOYutL
t1AA)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Creppy, Michael J.
Malphrus. Garry D.
Mullane, Hugh G.
Userteam: Docket
A 039-258-200
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision in the above-referenced case. This copy is being
provided to you as a courtesy. Your attorney or representative has been served with this
decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1292.S(a). If the attached decision orders that you be
removed from the United States or affirms an Immigration Judge's decision ordering that you
be removed, any petition for review of the attached decision must be filed with and received
by the appropriate court of appeals within 30 days of the date of the decision.
DO)VtL c
Sincerely,
t1/Vl..)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Creppy, Michael J.
Malphrus, Garry D.
Mullane, Hugh G.
Userteam: .
Cite as: Milton Escamilla-Iraheta, A039 258 200 (BIA July 13, 2015)
cw
li'W ..V.....ifoc
Date:
JUL l 3 20,5
APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:
ON BEHALF OF OHS:
Lois B. Agronick
Associate Legal Advisor
APPLICATION: Remand
This case is presently before the Board pursuant to the respondent's appeal of the
Immigration Judge's May 28, 2014, decision. On June 8, 2015, the respondent filed a motion to
remand. On June 16, 2015, the Department of Homeland Security ("DRS") filed a
non-opposition to the respondent's motion to remand. The motion will be granted and the record
will be remanded.
We review for clear error the findings of fact, including the determination of credibility,
made by the Immigration Judge. 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(d)(3)(i). We review de novo all other issues
including whether the parties have met the relevant burden of proof, and issues of discretion.
8 C.F.R. 1003.l{d)(3)(ii).
The respondent contends that his January 13, 1998, conviction for theft is no longer an
aggravated felony because the Maryland criminal statute is not divisible. While the OHS does
not oppose a remand, it does not agree with the respondent's legal basis for the motion. Thus,
we will remand this case for consideration of the respondent's eligibility for cancellation of
removal for certain lawful permanent residents. We take no position as to whether the
respondent is ultimately eligible for or deserving of cancellation of removal. See Matter of
L-0-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 413, 422 (BIA 1996). However, we note that the respondent has the
burden of establishing eligibility for cancellation of removal, which includes demonstrating that
he has not been convicted of an aggravated felony. See section 240A{a)(3) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
1229b(a)(3); see also section 240(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4)(A)(i) (stating
that it is the alien's burden to establish eligibility for relief from removal); 8 C.F.R. 1240.8(d)
("If the evidence indicates that one or more grounds for mandatory denial of the application for
relief may apply, the alien shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence
that such ground do not apply."). Accordingly, the following order will be entered.
ORDER: The motion is granted, and the record is remanded for further proceedings
consistent with the foregoing opinion.
Cite as: Milton Escamilla-Iraheta, A039 258 200 (BIA July 13, 2015)
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
In the Matter of
)
)
)
)
MILTON ESCAMILLA-IRAHETA
RESPONDENT
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
CHARGES:
APPLICATIONS:
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ANDRES C. BENACH
ON BEHALF OF OHS: JENNIFER E. PIATESKI
File: A039-258-200
offense of theft under $500 and that these crimes did not arise out of a single scheme of
misconduct.
DAVIDW. CROSLAND
Immigration Judge
A039-258-200
CERTIFICATE PAGE
I hereby certify that the attached proceeding before JUDGE DAVID