U.S.

Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board oflmmigration Appeals Office of the Clerk

5 /07 Leesburg Pike, Suile 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 20530

Stender, Christopher J., Esq 582 Market Street, Suite 1015 San Francisco, CA 94104

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - SFR P.O. Box 26449 San Francisco, CA 94126-6449

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: NAVARRO-ACOSTA, FRANCISCO

A 077-173-541

Date of this notice: 11/13/2013

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case. Sincerely,

DOWtL cl1.AAJ
Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members: Kendall-Clark, Molly

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Francisco Navarro-Acosta, A077 173 541 (BIA Nov. 13, 2013)

. .

u.s.-nepartment of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

File:
In re:

A077 173 541

San Francisco, CA

Date:

NOV 1B2013

FRANCISCO NAVARRO-ACOSTA

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS MOTION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Christopher J. Stender, Esquire

The respondent has filed a motion requesting that we reissue the May 17, 2013, decision of the Board in his proceedings due to the fact that he never received a copy of that decision. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not opposed the respondent's motion. Considering the totality of the circumstances presented, the Wlopposed motion is granted. ORDER: The Board's order ofMay 17, 2013, attached hereto, is hereby reissued and shall be treated as entered on today's date.

Cite as: Francisco Navarro-Acosta, A077 173 541 (BIA Nov. 13, 2013)
rn: . .

. m...;;;::;;1nu_n&il.K.J

?JJ%.....&

41!

.wZ(IJJX!iCl

u.s. Department of Justice

Falls Cliurch, Virginia 22041

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review

File:

A077 173 541 - San Francisco, CA

Date:

MAY 17 2013

In re: FRANCISCO NAVARRO-ACOSTA

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Pro se1

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

APPLICATION: Reopening The respondent appeals the March 16, 2012, decision of the Immi gration Judge denying the respondent's motion to reopen. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not filed a reply to the appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. We review findings of fact by an Immigration Judge under the clearly erroneous standard of review, but we may review de novo questions of law, discretion, and judgment and all other issues in appeals :from decisions of Immigration Judges. See 8 C.F.R. 1003. 1 (d)(3)(i), (ii).

the respondent waived his right to appeal.. On January 24, 2012, the respondent filed a motion to reope.n arguing that he was deprived of due process in the previous proceedings. The Immigration Judge correctly denied the motion as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.23(b)(l). On appeal, the respondent maintains that the Immigration Judge should have reopened his proceedings because the respondent was young and thus did not understand the legal process (Respondent's Appeal Brief, page 5). The respondent has provided no explanation for the

The record reflects that the respondent was ordered removed on December 23, 1998, and

accompanied by a guardian, relative, or friend). Additionally, contrary to the respondent's appellate contention, he does not fall under the provisions of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Act of December 23, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-457, 122 Stat. 5044, because he was 19 years old when placed into proceedings, and as noted by the Immigration Judge, he expressed no fear of returning to Mexico. We find the respondent's motion does not establish an exceptional situation sufficient to warrant reopening of his removi proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.2 (a); see also Matter ofGThe respondent's attorney did not formally enter his appearance with the Board through the filing of a Form EOIR-27, as required by 8 C.F.R. 1003.3(a)(3). Instead, he filed a Form EOIR-28, which is not a substitute for the required Form EOIR.-27. Therefore, we must consider the respondent to be proceeding prose. As a courtesy, however, we will send a copy of this decision to the attorney who submitted the appeal.
1

untimely motion. Nor has he shown that there was erro r in accepting his pleadings because by his own admission, he was 19 years old at the time of the hearing. See Matter ofAmaya-Castro, 21 I&N Dec. 583, 586 (BIA 1996) (an Im.migration Judge shall not accept an admission of deportability from an unrepresented respondent who is under the age of 16 and is not

Cite as: Francisco Navarro-Acosta, A077 173 541 (BIA Nov. 13, 2013)

A077173 41

D-, 22 I&N Dec. 1132 (BIA 1999); Matter of J-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 976, 984 (BIA 1997) (stating that the Board's power to reopen cases sua sponte is limited to exceptional circumstances and is not meant to cure filing defects or circumvent the regulations). While the respondent raises arguments pertaining to prosecutorial discretion, we point out that the Board is a decision-making body that adjudicates cases initiated by the DHS. Only the DHS may prosecute or exercise its discretion not to prosecute a case, and this is not a dec isio n that the Immigration Judge or the Board may review. See Matter of G-N-C-, 22 I&N Dec. 281 (BIA 1998). We find no grounds upon which to grant the respo nde nt's motion on this basis. Accordingly, the following order will be entered. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Cite as: Francisco Navarro-Acosta, A077 173 541 (BIA Nov. 13, 2013)