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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Nishad Yogesh Pandya, A088 276 788 (BIA Aug. 22, 2013)

Nishad Yogesh Pandya, A088 276 788 (BIA Aug. 22, 2013)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 426|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) Appeal sustained the respondent’s appeal upon finding the respondent's application to adjust status under Section 245(i) was denied based on the clearly erroneous determination that the respondent submitted no evidence indicating that his father, Yogesh Pandya, was the same person named as the beneficiary of a labor certification filed prior to April 30, 2001. 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In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) Appeal sustained the respondent’s appeal upon finding the respondent's application to adjust status under Section 245(i) was denied based on the clearly erroneous determination that the respondent submitted no evidence indicating that his father, Yogesh Pandya, was the same person named as the beneficiary of a labor certification filed prior to April 30, 2001. 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 28, 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

10/12/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Chaudhary, Bhavya Esq. The Law Oice of Bhaya Chaudhary 5696 Peachtree Parkway Ste A Norcross, GA 30092Name: PANDYA, NISHAD YOGESH
US
Deprtment  tie
Executive Oce r Imigraion Review
Bod ogo AO o h Ck
507 Lebrg Pke Sut 000Fas Clrch Vgna 04/
HS/ICE Oice of Chief Counsel AT180 Sprig Street Suite 332Atanta, GA 30303A 088-276788Dateof this otice 8/22/2013
nclosed s a copy of he Bod's decisio ad orde  he above-ereced case.nclosure
 Mb:G A J.C P APy Rg
Siceely,
D
c
l
Donna Cr Chief lerk
lucasdU k
Cite as: Nishad Yogesh Pandya, A088 276 788 (BIA Aug. 22, 2013)
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
 
.
U Deparmen
of
usice
Executive dce r Immation RevewDecison of he Boar of mmiaion AppealsFa Chuch, Vrginia
22041
File:88 276 788 Alana GAIn e NSHAD YOGES PNDY A
REOVAL PROCEEDNGSAPEADae:O ELFOF RESPONENhavya Chaudhary, EsquireON EAL OF DSMary C LeeAssisan Chief ConselCHARE:
AUG
2  013
 Nice: Sec212(a)(6)(A)(i),& Ac [8U.SC § 182(a)(6)()(i)]Pesen wiho being admied or paoled (conceded)ALCAIO: Adjusmen of sas eesponden, a naive and ciize of ndia, appeals om he Immiaion JudgesJanuary 31, 212, decisio, preemiing he esponde's applicaion r adjusen of sausunder secion 245(i) of he mmigaion ad Naionaiy Ac, 8 SC § 1255(i) is appeal willbe ssined and he ecord wil be emanded r er proceedigs consisen wih hisdecision. hee is o dispue ha he responden is he so of Y ogesh Padya, a naive and ciize of ndia 
(lJ.
a 4 Tr a 13637 Resp ay 4, 2, reia emoandum a abs FG) Therespoden mainains ha a labo cericaion was led on is hers behalf on or bereApil3, 21, ideniing his faher as Rajesh Dave (Ja 4; r. a 13637, 17778;Resp May 4, 2, Peiaemoandm a ab )y vire of is ling, e esponden sses a he is a grndeed alien nder secion 245(i) of he Ac, such a he is eligible oadjus is saus nowihsanding he c ha e eneed he ied Saes wihou inspecion ndaissio o parole (Resp refa 1119 IJ a 4; Tr a 23, 4-42, 44, 4748, 56-57; Exh 28) e Imigraon Judge concluded ha e responden is no a grandheed aien unde secion 25(i) of he c becase e did no esbis a e is he deivaive beneciry of a abo ceicaion led on o bee Apil 3 2 (J. a 4-5). Specically, she d ha heesponden did no presen any evidence esablising a e respondens he, Yogeshndya, d e abo cericaion beneciry, Rajesh Dave, are he same peson (.J a 4-5)On appeal, he esponden mainains,
 /,
a he Imiaion Jdge eed in concludingha Y ogesh Pandya nd Rajesh Dave are no he same peson (Resp ief a 511 )
Cite as: Nishad Yogesh Pandya, A088 276 788 (BIA Aug. 22, 2013)
 
,
.
!%
088 2688We review the Iiato udges cual dg that there is o evidece establishg ha the resodets ther is kow as Rajesh ave r cear error
Ce error revew sscaly dereal" o the ier o c ad recudes reversal eve i he reviewigauthority vews e evdece derely o he ct der.
See Concrete Pipe
&
 Products of  Cal., Inc v Consuction Laborers Pension Trust Fund for 
S
Cl
508 S 602 623 (993);
Anderson v Ci of Bessemer Ci
N,
40 S 564, 534 (985)I oer words, wherehere e wo essibe views o the evidece, the c ders choice betwee the s o cle eor
See Anderson v Ci of essemer Ci,
N
 supra
at 54 Accordgly order toreverse a actual deteriatio, he apellae body mus, uo cosderatio o e etireevidece," be le wth the dee d  covicto ha a stake has bee coted"
See United States v United Sttes Gypsum Co
333 S. 364 395 (948)Alough we exress o oo as to he sucecyo the resodets evdece seekig toestabsh tha Yogesh adya ad Rajesh ave are he sae erso, we disce clear eor i theImgrao Judges dig ha the resodet dd ot preset 
any 
evdece reeva o hisquesio (J. at 45) Notaby the resodet preseted testoy o severa dviduals whocaied ha they kew Yogesh adya ad were aware that he soemes used the alas RajeshDave (Tr at 685, 8, 80, 83-93, 980, 04 29-32, 36-3, 3-5 -8 8-89)Moreover, he resode reseed adavs o hs ther ad vous eople who kew hely o establsh a his her aso used he aias Rajesh ave ad docues showg that boYogesh adya ad Rajesh Dave receved ai at 6 oh arde Cour, Roe, eorga (Res ay 4, 200, retral Meoradu at Tab G Res. Ocober 3, 20, retialMeoradu at Tabs BC, E; esp. Oposiio o the Deae o Hoed Secritys(HSs) Motio to reet at ab B) I dg that o evidece was reseed themato Judge did o acowedge e preseatio o e regog tesoy ddocuets, or did she rerece the evidece rovded by he resode i explaig why t wasisuce r he respode o carry his burde  eslshig he s gradthered by heabor cericaio ed o Rajesh Daves behaAs a resul, we cocude tha he Imgrao Judges decsio is ot supored by adeqateaalyss exlaig the reasos r her ultae deteriao ha he resode dd o cayhsburde o roo o demosate tha he s a gradthered ale.
See Matter of -P
22 I&Nec468 43 (BIA 999) (vestig the Iigratio udge wh he resposiblity r esurigthesubstave coleteess o the deciso")
Mer of MP
20 IN ec 86 (BIA 994).Accordigy, read o the record s ecess o aow he Iiatio Judge to ake ese
1
e review dgs o ct icludig credbility dgs, r clear eor.
See
8 CR§003 (d)(3)()
 see also Mater of JYC
24 I&N ec. 260 (BI 200);
Matter of SH
23 &N ec. 462 (BA 2002) We revew quesos o law, dscreio, or judge, ad allother issues
 de novo ee
8 CR. § 003  ( d)(3)(i).
2
e resodet also preseted additoal evidece o aeal aimed a carryg hs burde o proo (Res. Bre a Tabs B). As a appeate body, we cao cosder ts evdece
ee
8C.R § 003(d)(3)(v);
Matter of Fedorenk
9 &ec 5 (BA 984) However, gh o our dsposo o ths aer, alhough he respode has o exlaed how thisevidece s ew ad revously uavaable, e Igao Judge may cosider he documesd ay other evdece he paries wish o prese i he couse o readed roceedgs
d

v
2
"····-

m
m_,H*:

:

VJr�
M3
'··

Cite as: Nishad Yogesh Pandya, A088 276 788 (BIA Aug. 22, 2013)

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)//-->