U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals
Office of the Clerk
5 J07 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Ch11rch. Virginia 22041

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - OKC

4400 SW 44th Street, Suite A
Oklahoma City, OK 73119-2800

Name: 1--E- M-YDate of this notice: 11/10/2015

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

DGnltL

f1/lA)

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Grant, Edward R.

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
Cite as: M-Y-I-E-, AXXX XXX 979 (BIA Nov. 10, 2015)

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

Langer, Steven Franklin

Langer Law, PLC
600 N Walker Ave., Suite 220
Oklahoma City, OK 73102

U.S. Oepartment of Justice

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: 979 - Oklahoma City, OK

Date:

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Steven F. Langer, Esquire

APPLICATION: Continuance
The respondent, a native and citizen of Guatemala, appeals the decision of the
Immigration Judge dated June 10, 2014. The Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") has
not filed a response to the appeal. The record will be remanded.
While on appeal, the respondent has filed documents showing that a Form 1-360 was filed
with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"). The USCIS case status
website indicates that the respondent's visa petition for classification as a special immigrant
juvenile (Form 1-360) was approved on October 23, 2015. See 8 C.F.R. 204.1 l(a), (d)(2)(i).
As the facts underlying the respondent's eligibility for relief from removal have changed during
the pendency of the respondent's appeal, we will remand the record for the Immigration Court to
consider in the first instance the new evidence filed on appeal and any other applications for
relief, and any response from the DHS.
Accordingly, the following orders will be issued:
ORDER: The Immigration Judge's June 10, 2014, decision and removal order are
vacated.
FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Court for further
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion d for entry of a new decision.

2TC,,,\J

Cite as: M-Y-I-E-, AXXX XXX 979 (BIA Nov. 10, 2015)

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

NOV 1 0 2015

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

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

In the Matter of
)
)
)
)

RESPONDENT

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

CHARGE:

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

APPLICATION:

None stated.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: STEVEN F. LANGER

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
ON BEHALF OF OHS: JOHNSTON L. ALLUMS
Dallas, Texas

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

The respondent is a male native and citizen of Guatemala who was issued a
Notice to Appear on December 15, 2012. See Exhibit 1. This case began at the
Immigration Court in Houston, Texas, and the respondent then requested that this case
be venued to the Court in Oklahoma City by the filing of a motion for change of venue in
January of 2013. The judge in Houston then signed the order changing venue to
Dallas, which is the Court having administrative control over Oklahoma, on February 5,
2013.
1
Cite as: M-Y-I-E-, AXXX XXX 979 (BIA Nov. 10, 2015)

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

June 10, 2014

File: 979

The parties appeared before the Court in Oklahoma on October 22, 2013; the
respondent was accompanied by his attorney of record, Mr. Steven Langer. The

which was marked and admitted as Exhibit 1. The respondent, through counsel,
admitted allegations 1 through 4 and conceded his removability from the United States
as charged under Section 212(a)(6)(A){i) of the Act.
The respondent was offered an opportunity to designate a country of removal
and declined to do so. Therefore, based on the admission to allegation number 2, the
Court designated the nation of Guatemala.
Based on the admissions and concessions entered by the respondent through
his attorney of record, the Court finds that the issue of removability has been
conclusively established. See Section 240(c)(1)(A) of the Act.
At the hearing on October 22, 2013, the Court entertained the respondent's
attorney's request for a continuance to articulate relief. Counsel stated on the record
that they were pursuing filing a Special Immigrant Juvenile petition and getting the
requisite state court order to make that happen, and then pursue adjustment through
that method. The Court granted the respondent's request for a continuance to file the
SIJ petition, and gave the respondent eight months for that to happen. The Court reset
the case until June 10, 2014; directed counsel, on the record, to be prepared to
articulate relief on that day.
At the hearing on June 10, 2014, the respondent again appeared with his
attorney of record. When inquiried as to relief, Mr. Langer indicated that his
investigation and analysis had determined that the respondent was not eligible for an
SIJ petition and, therefore, no SIJ petition had been filed. The respondent's attorney
requested that the Court grant the respondent 120 days pre-conclusion voluntary

979

2
Cite as: M-Y-I-E-, AXXX XXX 979 (BIA Nov. 10, 2015)

June 10, 2014

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

respondent, through counsel, acknowledged proper receipt and service of the NTA,

departure. The Government of the United States agreed to that request.

The Court then proceeded to advise the respondent of his rights and to verify

Court was beginning the pre-conclusion voluntary departure advisals, that the
respondent said that he had more questions and that he needed more time to talk to his
lawyer.
The respondent's attorney had numerous cases on the docket for today, so we
proceeded on to stand down in the current case and to allow Mr. Langer to proceed
with his other cases that he had today. Once he was completed those other matters,
Mr. Langer then had the opportunity to go out into the lobby of the building and speak to
his client and answer those questions.
Later on in the afternoon when we reconvened and went back on the record, the
respondent's counsel, Mr. Langer, indicated that now that he had had further
conversation with his client, that his client did not want pre-conclusion voluntary
departure, and that Mr. Langer was making yet another request for another continuance
to file or pursue an SIJ visa petition based on information and further discussion that the
respondent had had with his attorney in the lobby of the building.
The Court finds that that is not good cause for a continuance, considering the
factors outlined by the Board in Matter of Perez, 19 l&N Dec. 433 (1987).
The record would reflect that the Court previously granted the respondent's
request for continuance on October 22, 2013, and gave the respondent eight months to
develop whatever relief that he had available and to be ready to articulate that today.
There were specific discussions at the last hearing about filing an SIJ petition, and the
Court gave the respondent eight months to do that.
The respondent did not file the petition in the eight months that he was given.
3
Cite as: M-Y-I-E-, AXXX XXX 979 (BIA Nov. 10, 2015)

June 10, 2014

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

with him that that is how he wished to proceed. The record would reflect that as the

Therefore, in accordance with the Board's decision in Matter of Perez, the Court finds
that the respondent has failed to demonstrate good cause for a continuance. As the

continuance to await the results 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.
The Court finds that in the current case that the respondent was afforded eight
months to pursue his SIJ petition and failed to do so. Therefore, it is not good cause to
continue this case yet again for the very purpose that the Court has already continued
the matter for, and the respondent did not file it.
When asked to articulate any other relief, counsel for the respondent indicated
that they had no other relief. The Court inquired did he still wish to pursue the pre
conclusion voluntary departure which the Court was willing to grant, and the respondent
said no, he no longer wanted that, and they were just going to appeal the denial of the
continuance.
The Court, having determined the respondent has conceded his removability
from the United States as charged, he has rejected the Court's offer of pre-conclusion
voluntary departure, having failed to demonstrate good cause for yet another
continuance in this matter, and having indicated that there is no relief available,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondent be removed from the United
States to the nation of Guatemala.
Respondent will be advised of his appeal rights separately on the record.

Please see the next page for electronic

signature

979

4
Cite as: M-Y-I-E-, AXXX XXX 979 (BIA Nov. 10, 2015)

June 10, 2014

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

Board has indicated, good cause for continuance is not demonstrated by requesting a

MICHAEL P. BAIRD
Immigration Judge

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

979

5
Cite as: M-Y-I-E-, AXXX XXX 979 (BIA Nov. 10, 2015)

June 10, 2014

,I

/Isl/
Immigration Judge MICHAEL P. BAIRD

979

6
Cite as: M-Y-I-E-, AXXX XXX 979 (BIA Nov. 10, 2015)

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

bairdm on August 18, 2014 at 12:50 PM GMT

June 10, 2014