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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
K-O-, A--- --- --- (BIA Aug. 27, 2013)

K-O-, A--- --- --- (BIA Aug. 27, 2013)

Ratings:
(0)
|Views: 585|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded the record after finding the immigration judge failed to comply with the regulatory requirement in 8 C.F.R. 1240.11(c)(1)(iii) to specifically advise respondents who express a fear of persecution of their right to counsel in removal proceedings and to provide a list of individuals who have indicated their availability to provide representation in asylum proceedings on a pro bono basis. The decision was written by Member Linda Wendtland and joined by Member Teresa Donovan. Member Roger Pauley dissented.
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded the record after finding the immigration judge failed to comply with the regulatory requirement in 8 C.F.R. 1240.11(c)(1)(iii) to specifically advise respondents who express a fear of persecution of their right to counsel in removal proceedings and to provide a list of individuals who have indicated their availability to provide representation in asylum proceedings on a pro bono basis. The decision was written by Member Linda Wendtland and joined by Member Teresa Donovan. Member Roger Pauley dissented.

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on Sep 03, 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

 
Goldblatt, Stevn H., EsqGeorgetown Universty Law Center 111
F
Street, NW, Sute 306Washngton, DC 20001-0000Name:
<
,
   
Exeutive Oce r Immgation Revew
Board fImmigratin ppealsOc f he Clerk
5I7 Lsbrg Pike, Sut Falls Chc Vrn 
OHS/ICE ce of Chef Counsel ELZ625 Evans Street, Room 135Elzabeth, NJ 07201Date of ths notce8/27/2013
")
,
1
·-�
)
u:j 
nosed is a copy of the Board' deon and orde n te above-reenced cae.ncoe
Pl Mb:y, Rg Wdd Ld v T L
Snerely,
D
c
t
Donna Carr Ce Cek
 k
K-O-, A--- --- --- (BIA Aug. 27, 2013)
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
 
US. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce r Immigration ReviewDecision o the Board ofmigration AppealsFalls Church, Virginia 
04
File:
-Elizabeth, NJInre:
-
I
REMOVAL PROCEEDNGSPPEAL AND MOTONN BEHAL O RESPONDENT: Seven H. Goldblatt, EsquireHARGDate: Notice Sec.212(a)(6)(A)(i), I&N Act[8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)]-Present without being admitted or paroled (und)PPICATION:Asylum; withholding of removal; Convention Against Torture;voluntary departure; remand
AUG 2 7
Therespondent, a native and citizen of Ghana appeals om the mmigration Judge'sovember 30, 2012, decision, denying his applications r asylum under section 208 of theImmigration and Nationality Act (Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1158; withholding of removal under section41(b)(3) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 123 (b)(3); protection under Article 3 of the Conventiongainst Torure,
 see
8 C..R. §§ 1208.16-.18; and voluntary departure under section 240B(b) of  te Act. The respondent does not challenge the Immigration Judges ruling that his asylumapplication is time-barred, nor her ruling that he does not qualify r voluntary departure becausee lacks a passport. The respondents request r a waiver of the appellate ling e is granted.
ee
8 C..R. §1003.8(a)(8). His appeal will be sustained and the record will be remanded r rther proceedings consistent with this decision.We review cual ndings, including credibili ndings, r clear error.
 See
8 C..R.§ 1003.(d)(3)(i);
 see lso Mtterof J-Y-C-,
24 &N Dec. 260 (BA 2007);
tter of SH-,
23I&N Dec. 462 (BIA2002). We review questions f law, discretion, or judgment, and allther issues
de nov. See
8 C..R. § 1003.(d)(3)(ii).The respondent initially led r asylum on August 28, 2012, and in his application, asamended, he alleged ar of persecuion in Ghana on account of (1) his homosexuality and (2) anincident in Ghana where a gun was held to his head based on the political activities of a milymember (.J. at 2-3, 15; Tr. at 10, 78-79, 104-05; xh. 2). Accordingly, his case is goveed by the amendments to the Act brought about by the REA D Act.
 See Mtter of S-B-,
24 &NDec. 42, 44-45 (BA 2006) (explaining that the REAL D Act applies to all applications r relief led on or aer May 11, 2005).nconsidering he respondents claim r protectie relief, the mmigration Judge un hisasylum application time-barred, in that he did not le r asylum within a year of his 1994 entry
K-O-, A--- --- --- (BIA Aug. 27, 2013)
 
nto the Unted tates
1
and he dd not establsh "changed or extraordnary crcumstcesexcusng hs le to comply wth the generally applcable lng deadlne (.J. at 2 10 Tr. at 915 102-03 Exh. 2).
ee
sectons 208(a)(2)(B) (D) of the Act 8 U..C. §§  158(a)(2)(B) (D);8 C..R. § 1208.4(4)
 see also Matter of AM,
23 &N 737 (BA 2005). n addton although he mmgraton Judge und that the respondent and hs aunt credbly establshed hs sexualorentaton the mmgraton Judge ultmately dened the respondent's applcatons r asylumwtholdng of removal and protecton under he Conventon Aganst Torture because sheoncluded that he dd not carry hs brden of proof n establshng that he wll lkely experence he requste level of harm should he ret to Ghana (.J. at 14-22 Exhs. 2 3D).The respondent ntally percted a tmely appeal
 pro se
wheren he rased varousubstantve challenges to the mmgraton Judge's decson and asserted hs statutory elgbltyr vous other rms of relef (Notce of Appeal; Resp. Openng Bref at 1-7 12-14).Aer lng hs openng bref the respondent retaned current counsel and through hs attoey hehas led supplemental breng n whch he rases varous due process conces as to the manner n whch hs proceedngs were conducted (Resp. uppl. Bref at 13-26). peccally the respondent mantans
nter ala,
 that lke n
Lesle
v
Attorney General of the Unted tates,
611 .3d 171 (3d Cr. 2010) the mmgraton Judge dd not provde the respondentwth adequate advsals regardng hs rght to cosel or sh hm wh a reasonableopportunty to obtan counsel r hs removal proceedngs (Resp. uppl. Bref at 22-26).
ee
8 C..R. §§ 1240.(a)()-(3) 1240.(c)()().n
Lesle
v
Attrney General of the Unted tates, supra,
 the Uned tates Court of Appealsr the Thrd Crcut the ursdcton n whch ths case arses dscussed the general regulatoryadvsals r unrepresented alens set rth at 8 C..R. §§ 1240.(a)()-(3). These advsalsnclude (1) shng the respondent wth a lst of 
 pro bon
legal servces provded wthn thedstrct where the removal hearng s occurrng and (2) advsng the respondent of hs rght to berepresented by cosel n hs removal proceedngs at no cost to the goveent.
ee 
n
Lesle
 the Thrd Crcut held that where the regong regulatons are breached a respondent snot requred to demonsrate actual and substantal preudce n order to preval on hs due processclam.
ee d.
at 180-82.Ths case s dstngushable om
Lesle
nasmuch as here the mmgraton Judge advsed the respondent of hs rght to counsel and conrmed that the respondent had reeved the legalservces lst durng hs rst two hearngs (Tr. at 1-2 4-6).
ee eg, Mensah
v
Attorney General of the Unted tates,
405 . App'x 631 634 (3d Cr. 2010) (dstngushng
Lesle
v
AttorneyGeneral of the Unted tates, supra,
on sml cts n ndng no due process volaton)
1
The 1-year lng perod actually dd not begn to run tl the pertnent statuory provson'seectve date of Aprl 1 1997
(see
8 C..R. § 1208.4(a)(2)()) but he respondent does notargue that he met the resultng deadlne of Aprl 1 1998. Rather as noted
 supra,
he does notchallenge the mmgraton Judge's tmelness rulng.
2
The respondent's
 prose
bref led on ebruary 19 2013 wll be rerred to herenaer as hsOpenng Bref and the bref led by counsel on Aprl 13 2013 wll be referred to as h uppl.Bref We ackowledge that the respondent through counse also led a moton to remand andsupplemental authortes on Aprl 13 2013 and Aprl 25 2013 respectvely.
K-O-, A--- --- --- (BIA Aug. 27, 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)//-->