Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 12-1680
MANUEL COREAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Argued:
Decided:
June 6, 2013
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Manuel Coreas, a citizen of El Salvador, has
lived in the United States since November 1994.
(DHS)
initiated
subsequently
removal,
which
the
filed
removal
an
proceedings
application
immigration
judge
for
(IJ)
against
him.
cancellation
granted.
The
of
DHS
I.
There is no dispute that Coreas committed a crime of moral
turpitude.
County
On
General
April
26,
District
2001,
Court
he
was
of
convicted
petit
in
larceny,
Loudoun
which
he
Class
misdemeanor);
Id.
18.2-11(a)
(For
Class
misdemeanors,
confinement
in
jail
for
not
more
than
twelve
DHS
group
supervisor,
the
DHS
commenced
removal
allows
removal
when
lawful
permanent
resident
is
imposed.
Coreas
subsequently
filed
an
application
for
Coreas
II.
Coreas argues that we should reverse the BIAs decision
vacating
the
IJs
order
according
to
Coreas,
the
BIA
failed
the
BIA
improperly
required
factors
factfinding.
and
cancelling
his
to
removal
consider
engaged
all
in
because,
of
the
its
own
Federal
to
U.S.C.
1252(a)(2)(B)-(i),
[n]o
court
claims
and
questions
of
law.
See
id.
as
precluding
review
of
constitutional
claims
or
attempts
to
get
past
the
jurisdictional
bar
by
Adverse
factors,
on
the
other
hand,
involve
such
matters as
the nature and underlying circumstances of the
exclusion ground at issue, the presence of additional
significant violations of this countrys immigration
laws, the existence of a criminal record and, if so,
its nature, recency, and seriousness, and the presence
of other evidence indicative of a respondents bad
character or undesirability as a permanent resident of
this country.
Id. at 584.
Marin
BIA
providing
also
noted
financial
that
Coreass
assistance
to
siblings
family
currently
he
is
It
his
are
while
has
larceny,
the
an
public
adverse
extensive
factors,
criminal
intoxication
or
the
BIA
history,
swearing,
observed
including
driving
that
petit
with
as
to
his
abuse
of
alcohol
or
his
record
of
put,
although
Coreas
may
be
displeased
with
the
Coreas
also
1003.1(d)(3)(i)
contends
and
(iv)
that
the
when
it
BIA
violated
engaged
in
C.F.R.
its
own
. . .
(iv) Except for taking administrative notice of
commonly known facts such as current events or the
contents of official documents, the Board will not
engage in factfinding in the course of deciding
appeals.
A party asserting that the Board cannot
properly resolve an appeal without further factfinding
must file a motion for remand. If further factfinding
is needed in a particular case, the Board may remand
the proceeding to the immigration judge or, as
appropriate, to the Service.
Our review of the record, however, convinces us that the
BIA did not tamper with the IJs factual findings.
Instead,
III.
Next,
Coreas
claims
that
we
ought
to
reverse
the
BIAs
The government
. . .
(14)
officers;
(15)
Supervisory
district
adjudications
. . .
(23)
. . .
(30)
(31)
officers;
. . .
(38)
officers;
Supervisory
service
center
adjudications
. . .
(41) Other
officers
or
employees
of
the
Department or of the United States who are delegated
list,
to
and
define
we
are
exactly
baffled
what
by
the
group
governments
supervisor
also
puzzled
that
it
was
unable
to
answer
how
the
is,
We
DHS
this
regard
is
enough
to
overcome
the
presumption
of
See Almy v. Sebelius, 679 F.3d 297, 309 (4th Cir. 2012)
contrary,
courts
presume
that
they
have
properly
discharged
an
alien
deportation
must
establish
proceedings
on
prejudice
claim
that
to
[his]
Rusu v. INS,
296
in
F.3d
316,
320
(4th
Cir.
2002)
(alteration
original)
impact
the
results
of
the
proceedings.
Id.
at
320-21
(9th
Cir.
2000)).
Simply
stated,
Coreas
has
failed
to
required
prejudice
discussed
above,
we
will
deny
his
IV.
Finally, Coreas maintains that we should reverse the BIAs
decision because of the DHSs alleged failure to abide by the
applicable regulations in drafting its NOA to the BIA.
10
The
is
relevant
Where
to
the
appellant
must
statutory
grounds
discretion
and
Coreass
appeal
state
must
concerns
whether
of
petition,
alleged
eligibility
the
C.F.R.
discretionary
the
identify
or
to
specific
Moreover,
8 C.F.R.
1003.1(d)(2)(i)-(A)
the
relates
to
exercise
of
factual
1003.3
relief,
error
the
and
legal
Id. 1003.3(b).
provides
that
[a]
of
any
appeal
in
any
case
in
which:
(A)
The
party
and
decision.
law
on
which
you
base
your
appeal
of
the
[IJs]
the
appeal:
DHSs
NOA
was
legally
insufficient
to
support
its
argument
that
he
grounds
for
appeal
with
the
reasons
that
follow,
we
decision.
12
will
not
upset
the
BIAs
First,
[t]he
jurisdictional.
2005).
requirement
of
specificity
is
not
Id. at 533.
dismiss
the
appeal.
In
other
words,
the
BIA
is
V.
As set forth above, we have no jurisdiction to review the
BIAs discretionary decision to vacate the IJs order.
And, as
13
14