Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out 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
Ruben Dario Diaz, A090 661 830 (BIA Aug. 14, 2013)

Ruben Dario Diaz, A090 661 830 (BIA Aug. 14, 2013)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 394|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) terminated proceedings against the respondent upon finding the Department of Homeland Security provided no reason not to accept at face value the lawful permanent resident card he was granted in 1990. The respondent's naturalization application had previously been denied because USCIS was unable to locate any records indicating how and why the respondent was granted such status. The decision was written by Member Roger Pauley and joined by Member Anne Greer and Member Patricia Cole.
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) terminated proceedings against the respondent upon finding the Department of Homeland Security provided no reason not to accept at face value the lawful permanent resident card he was granted in 1990. The respondent's naturalization application had previously been denied because USCIS was unable to locate any records indicating how and why the respondent was granted such status. The decision was written by Member Roger Pauley and joined by Member Anne Greer and Member Patricia Cole.

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on Aug 22, 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

09/18/2014

pdf

text

original

 
/
Joshua E. Bardavid Esq Aoney At Recod
35
roadway, Thid FlNew York NY
3
Name: DIAZ RUBEN DARI
US m  
Executive Oce r Imigraion Review
Bd mmg ppOc h Ck
5107 Lebr  gPike, Se 2000Fals Chuch V  g ina 2204
OHS/ICE ice of Chief Counse -NYC
6
Federal Paza 11t Floor New York NY
78
 A 
96683
Date of this notice
8/ 3
Enclosed is a copy of he Board's decision ad order in the above-erenced case.Enclosue
 Mb:P RG A .C P A
Sincerey,
D
c
Donna Carr Cie Clek
yg k
Cite as: Ruben Dario Diaz, A090 661 830 (BIA Aug. 14, 2013)
 
US
Depaent of Justice
Decision of he Board ofmmaion Appeals
·
Executive Oce 
r
Immation RevewFls Chch, Virgin
2201
Fe:A9 66 83e York Y re RUB DAR DAZ ak.a. Batolto Da-Da  RVAL PRCEDGSAPALDate BEHALF F RESDNJoshua . Bav squreCHARG
AUG I 4 2013
 otce Sec. (a)(6)(A)()&Act [8 U.S.C.§ 118(a)(6)(A)()Preset tout eg atte or aroleSec.1(a)(6)(C)()&Act 8 .SC. § 8(a)(6)(C)()-Frau or lll sreresetato of a ateral ctAPPLICAISecto 37(a)()(H) aver; austent of staseesoent a natve  cte of te Domnc Reuc aeals theatoJuge's ecson of Deceer 6 . e mgrato Juge u that teDearent of Hoea Securty (DS) esalshe removalty ue sectons(a)(6)(A)()  (a)(6)()() of he mato a atoaty Act 8 U.S.C§§ l 18(a)(6)(A)()  8(a)(6)(C)(). He her el tat te resoet  not shoelglty  a aver ue secton 37(a)()() of e Act 8 .SC.§7(a)()(H) eoceegs ll e teatee resoet cocees that e rst etee te te States thout secto at eorer ne Brosve exas o Arl  986 telg graton ocas tat s eas Barolto Da (.J. at ; . at 4; x 3 a A; Resonent's Bref at 4). Arl 986 the resoet as ssue  rer to So Cause  te ame Bolto D t teAumer 8 34 714 (Exh. ). e DHS sumtte  alcaton r asylu sey theresoet o A  986 n the e of Bolto D (xh. 3 a B).  Deceer 8996 a Imato Juge amstratvely close e eorato roceegsaganstBoto D (Ex. 3 as C D). e DS sumtte a ngernt ayss conng tatte eonent  aroto  are  ct e sae eon .
4
).Durg te enency of te eorto oceegs agast Bao to D te eonetotae lal eaet resece as Rue Da.  ths reg te resoet resete laleent resent car ssue o ch 9 99 eg te ame Rue Da(J. at ; xh. 6 a A at 6). At the herg o Setee 3  te resoet cou oteemer o he otane ts car (.J. at ; r at 13).e resonents cousel sertshat te resonent as ate austet of status s a Seca Agrcultura Woke(.J. at ; Resoets Bref at 4).
 
er secto A of te Act 8 US.C. § 6.
Cite as: Ruben Dario Diaz, A090 661 830 (BIA Aug. 14, 2013)
 
,
A090 661 830Sometime aer the esponden eceived staus as a lawl peen esident, he ed aapplicaion nauralizaion wh United Saes Ciizenship and miaion Seices("USCIS)Alhoughhe applicaion isef is no in the recod, he OHS submied the denialissued by he Disic Direcor on Novembe 19, 2008 (Exh. 3, Tab C). ile acknowledgingtha the esponden eceived a peanen residen cad, e Disic Direco sated tha thee aeno docuents on ecod showing how and why he was aned stats a a law peaentesident (Exh 3, ab C). he Distic Directo he sated hat during a naaitioninteiew on Augus 2 2007 the esondent tesied that he had never ere used y naesesides Ruben Diaz (Exh. 3, a C). A susequen USCIS investigaion evealed theesponden's Api 20, 1986 eny ino the United States withou inspecion, using the name"BartoioDi (Exh. 3, Ta C).The Disric Diecto hus concluded ta e esondenwilly gave false staements unde oah duing his Augus 2, 2007, ineview o otainimmiaion enes (Exh. 3 Ta C). As a esult, he Disict Diecor concuded that heesponden did not esalish his e identiy o the good oa chaace equired o nauraie a United Saes citizen (Exh. 3, Tab C).The denia of he respondents apication  natualization led o te comenceent of theinstant emoval poceedings wth he seice of a Noice to Appear on Jan 29, 2009 (Exh. 1)he mmiaion Judge held tha the OHS had proven emovailiy a chged (.J. a ).
See
8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(a) (he OHS bes he uden of poving reovailiy by cle d convincingevidence). He her und ha he espondent did not esablish ha he "was oheriseadmissible o the Unied Saes pusu to secion 237(a)()(H) of he Ac when he came o theUnied Saes using the ne "Baolio Diaz o when he adjused saus as uben Diaz onMch 9, 1990 (.J. a 2-3).
See
8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) (e esonden bears the burden of povingeigiiliy r eief om emoval). n addiion, he migation Judge concluded tha theesponden does no wan a voae execise of disceion due to his use of a lse nme addenial of having done so (J at 3) Theee, he denied the resonden's applicaion r a section 237(a)()(H) waivernappeal, the responden gues ha he is eligibe  a waive pusuant to secion237(a)(l)(H) of the Act (esondens Bief a 1525). To eceive such a waive,  alien mushaveeen admied o he United Saes
See
section 237(a)()(H) of he Ac (saing tha thewaive is avaiable  "[t]he ovisions of this aaph elating o he eoval of aiens withinthe Unied States on he ound tha hey wee inadmissible at the ime of adissionas aliensdescrie in secion 212(a)()(C)(i));
aer of Fu,
23 & N Dec. 985, 988 (BIA 206) (holdingtha secon 237(a)()(H) authoizes a waiver of emovability unde secion 237(a)()(A) edon a chge of inadmissibility under secion 22(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Ac) We thus view heesondent as impliciy chalenging the holding ha the DS has poven removaiiy unde secions 22(a)(6)(A)(i) ad 22(a)()(C)(i) of the Act, which woud e aoriate chages inhe case of an alien who has not been aditted to the Unied States.We eview tislegalquestion de novo.
See
8 C. § 3.d3ii)As discussed aove, the esonden pesented evidence of awl admission in the m of a awl peen esiden c issu o Ruben Diaz on Mch 9, 990 (Exh. 6, Tab A a 6). Inhe deia of he espondens apication r naaliaion, the Distric Dieco acknowedgedhe esponden's eceip of his peanent esiden cad (Exh. 3, Tab C. Ahough he DisictDiector ud no docen estaishin how d wh the esonden was aned satus she
2
Cite as: Ruben Dario Diaz, A090 661 830 (BIA Aug. 14, 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)//-->