U.S.

Department of Justice
r

Executive Ofiice for Immigration Review

Board of lmmigralion Appeals
Office of the Clerk
5/07 Leesburg Pike. Smte 2000
Falls Church. Virginia 2204/

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - NEW

970 Broad Street, Room 1300
Newark, NJ 07102

Name: MICHO, NOEL CHEGE

A 079-302-034
Date of this notice: 9/28/2015

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

Doruu.. C

t1/VL)

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:

Holmes, David 8.

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
Cite as: Noel Chege Micho, A079 302 034 (BIA Sept. 28, 2015)

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

MICHO, NOEL CH EGE

A079-302-034
DELANEY HAU DETENTION
451 DOREMUS AVENUE
NEWARK, NJ 07105

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

, -U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Date:

File: A079 302 034 - Newark, NJ

SEP 2 8 2015

In re: NOEL CHEGE MICRO a.k.a. Noel C. Micho

APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Pro se
APPLICATION: Remand
On June 29, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted an
unopposed motion to remand. On remand, we will sustain the appeal in part, and remand this
matter to the Immigration Court.
This case is procedurally complex because the respondent was previously in proceedings, in
which he applied for withholding of removal. His application was denied, and he appealed to the
Board. However, the Board remanded for further consideration of adjustment eligibility without
adjudicating the withholding claim. After that remand, the Immigration Judge terminated those
removal proceedings on July 2, 2009. Subsequently, the Department of Homeland Security
issued a new Notice to Appear, which was served on the respondent and filed with the
Immigration Court on July 14, 2009 (Exh. 1), thus commencing these new removal proceedings.
The discussion of the prior withholding claim left the impression that the claim was still pending
with the Board and could be reviewed along with the new appeal (Tr. at 79-80, 121-24).
Although the Board may address issues left unresolved when a matter has been remanded
and then returns to the Board after that remand, the procedural posture of this case is different.
In particular, after the Board's remand, the initial proceedings were terminated. Consequently,
the Immigration Judge's decision that had been entered on September 30, 2008, no longer had
any legal effect and could not be reviewed by the Board. The only decision that could be
reviewed by the Board was the January 9, 2014, decision that was rendered in the new removal
proceedings. Nor can we review the 2008 decision on remand from the Third Circuit.
Rather, given that the respondent and his attorney expressed concern about the ability to
pursue his withholding claim, we find it appropriate to remand this matter to allow the
respondent an opportunity to pursue an application in the instant removal proceedings.
ORDER: The appeal is sustained in part, and the record is remanded to the Immigration
Court for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new
decision.
FOR THE BOARD
Cite as: Noel Chege Micho, A079 302 034 (BIA Sept. 28, 2015)

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS