Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Osman Orozco Garcia, A043 745 973 (BIA Aug. 9, 2013)

Osman Orozco Garcia, A043 745 973 (BIA Aug. 9, 2013)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 395|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the denial of the respondent's motion to reopen upon finding that he failed to comply with an order of voluntary departure issued in 2011, thereby rendering him ineligible to adjust status for ten years. The decision was written by Member Roger Pauley.
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the denial of the respondent's motion to reopen upon finding that he failed to comply with an order of voluntary departure issued in 2011, thereby rendering him ineligible to adjust status for ten years. The decision was written by Member Roger Pauley.

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on Aug 14, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/28/2015

pdf

text

original

 
 Al-Jazrawi Joy Esq.3000 Wilcrest Drive, Ste 230Houston
X
77042Name: OROZCO GARCIA OSMAN
.S
Department
of
Justice
Executive Oce r Imgaon Revew
oard of Igraio AppalO of  Clrk
507
leb1 Pike. Suite 
2000
Fa C/rc/1, Vgina
2204/
DHS/ICE Oice of Chief Counsel
OU126 Nopoint Div uite 2020Houston,
X
77060 043-74597Date of this notice: 8/9/21
Eclosed s a copy of the Boad's decso d ode  the above-frned cas.Ecosue
 Mmbs:Puy, Rog
Scel,
D
C
c
t
DoCa Chie Cek
anesm Dockt
Cite as: Osman Orozco Garcia, A043 745 973 (BIA Aug. 9, 2013)
 
U.S
Department of Justice
Executive Oce r Immiation RevewDecision of  Board ofmaion AppealsFas Church, Vgnia
221
Fle:A043 745 73 Houton TXIn re OSMA OROZCO GARCAIRMOVAL PROCEEGSAEALDate:ON EA OF RESPONDENT:Joy Al-Jazraw EqureON A O DHS:CHARGEradey A SheanAstant Ce Coune
AUG 9 2013
 Notce Sec 212(a)(2)(A)()(II) &N Act[8U.S.C.§ 182(a)(2)(A){)(II)Conoed ubance voatonodged: Sec212(a)(7)(A)()I) I&Act[8U.SC§  82(a)(7)(A)()(I)] tno ad ant a or eny documentLodged: Sec 212(a)(6)(C)() I&NAct8 SC§ 82(a)(6)(C)()]Fraud or wll mrepreentato o a materal ctAPPICAONReopeng; adjutment o tatuThe repodet ha appealed heImmaton Judge Aprl 25 2013 deco to deny hoton to reopen The repondet appeal wl be dmed.The oard revew an Immaton udge' ndng o ct ncludng ndng a to thecredb o tetmony der the ceary erroneou" andard8CR§ 003l(d)(3)() Theoardreew queton o law dscreton and judent and al other ue n appeal omdecos o Immgraton udge de novo8C.FR.§1003.l(d)(3)()he Cour ted te repondent applcaton r ountary dep
e on June 6 20herepodenthad unt October 4 201 to oluntary depart he nted State The repodenteceved e dv  o the oeuee
fr
lng to voluntarly deprt b October 4 201(. at 2 Repondet Moton to Say Remoal at b ) he repodet dd not deprt theUnted Ste by October 4 201 On October 26 2011 the tate crna cot vacated herepondent conrolled subtance covcto on conttutona ground and dmed ecrmna acton (Repodent' oton to Stay Remoa at Tab E)
On Aprl 1 2013 therepondent ed a moton to reopen on the ound hat h crmnal acton wa dmsed The
1
The Deparmet o omeland Securty lodged addtona charge that were conceded by therespodent nd sutaed b theImgrato udge (J at
I).
Cite as: Osman Orozco Garcia, A043 745 973 (BIA Aug. 9, 2013)
 
 A043 745 973IiationJudge deied e esponde's moio nding tha i was ime-bred, that he wstatolyieligibe  e eief equesed  hs failue o vouniy dep a sua sponteeopening was not wanted nd at no exceptional cicustances meted eopening in iscase.We a e Imiaion Judges cocusion that he espondents otion to eopeshoud be denied
8
CFR. § 003(d)(3)(ii)Te Jne 6, 201, ode incuded he owng win:Pusuan to secion 40B(d) of e INA
8
USC secion 19c(d), ife espoden fals o depa e Unied Saes wn he ie specied o any exensions antedb e Depen of Hoeld Secu, e esponde sa be sujec o a civil peal of not ess  $00000 d no oe an $5000.00
 and shall binligibl fo a piod of n (10) yas fo any h lif und scion 240B and scions 240A 245 248 and 249 of h INA
(Emphasis added);
s also
secion 240B(d) of he AcTe espoden did no dep nstead he ed a moion o eopen wit the iationJudge aos o-es ae is cminal convicion ad een vacated (J. a 3) Te ecod asoeecs a e espondent ed his motion to eopen

 the peiod of vouny depueganted im by the Imiaion Jude had expied No evidece w incuded in his moionesabishng ha the DHS had exended te voun depae peiod ganed  temmiation Judge Unde ese cicmstances, and consisen w e section 240B(d) of te Act and he wten noce of e consequences of his fale to depa e Unied Staes witine time aloed as incuded in e igation Judges June 6, 011, ode and quoed above,e espondent is red om being consideed  adjsment of stas unde secion 25 of e Act  a peod of 
I
0 yeas. Aloug te esponden gues at his vacaed covictionesabishes a maeia cge meiin eopeng, we oe ha ganing a motion o eopensipy alows a pa e oppouni o establis eliibiliy  elief in e eopened poceedings; it is no n ultiate nding of suc sato eigibiiy Hee, he espodent is no satoily eigile  e eief sought (J a 2) As  additional mate we obsee tat the esponden is in emoval poceedings, notdepoatio poceedings. Foe secion 242(e)(2)(A) of e Ac wic is applicabe ony indepoation poceedins pems a sowg of "exceptiona cicustances (J. a 34) to excuseanalies having ovesayed is o he peiod of voun depue In e absence of suc a showig e aien is aed om vous s of eief incudig adusme of staus,  a  peodof 5 yes e e povisions of secion 242B(e)()(A) of the Act e ggeed on if e aien was give bo oal and wen noice of he consequences of is ile to timeydep e coun vountal wihin e time aoed b eithe he igation Judge o thisBo

section 42(e(2( o te ActIn conas undesecion 2408( d) of the Act which is applicale in emova poceedinshee is no coespondin "excepiona cicumstances povision Isead, secon 240B(d) of he Act povides at if a aie is peied o dep te Unied Staes vounly and ils to do sowi e ime peiod specied he o se shal e sbect to a civil penal of no ess h$,000 and no moe h $000The aien is aso ineigibe  vou ns of elief,
2
Cite as: Osman Orozco Garcia, A043 745 973 (BIA Aug. 9, 2013)

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->