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
Douglas Shitote, A200 224 343 (BIA March 6, 2014)

Douglas Shitote, A200 224 343 (BIA March 6, 2014)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 965|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) faulted the immigration judge for requiring the respondent and his out-of-state counsel to appear at the hearing rather than telephonically when the charges of removability were not contested and appearing in person required them to incur substantial financial difficulty to attend the hearing. The Board ultimately upheld the immigration judge’s decision to deny a change of venue, however, because the respondent was not eligible for any forms of relief. The decision was written by Member Patricia Cole.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) faulted the immigration judge for requiring the respondent and his out-of-state counsel to appear at the hearing rather than telephonically when the charges of removability were not contested and appearing in person required them to incur substantial financial difficulty to attend the hearing. The Board ultimately upheld the immigration judge’s decision to deny a change of venue, however, because the respondent was not eligible for any forms of relief. The decision was written by Member Patricia Cole.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on Mar 11, 2014
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

09/03/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Hurd, Rsten C., Esq. Colombo
&
Hurd, PL
 Depme of Jue
eve e  iaio evew
Board of Immi ratin Apeals Oce of he Clerk
507 Leesburg Pike, Sute 000 Fl Chc Vrgn 0530

Eas Michigan Seet, Suie

Oao FL
8
HS/ICE Oce of Chef Conse -DAL

E John Capente Fw Se

Irving, TX

Nae: SHTOTE, DOUGLAS
 
Date o ths noice

oed i a opy o e Boad deo ad ode  e aboe-eed ae oe
P b:
Cole Paca A
Seely
D
c
oa Ca Ce lek
ug

oce
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
Cite as: Douglas Shitote, A200 224 343 (BIA March 6, 2014)
 
r
U.S Dee of ue
E·xecuti�e
Ocfor
Imgraon Revew Deson of the Boad ofmon Apeal
F
a Chch, Vgina

Fie: A200 22 4 aas TX n eOUGLAS SHOE  REOA PROCEEDGS APEAL Date O BEHALF OF RSPOE usten C Hud Esqire CHAGE
MAR 6 201
 tice: Sec. 27(a((Ci & Act [8 .SC. § 227(a((C(i]  mmgra iated cndtis  staus (cceded Sec 27(a(( & Act 8 USC § 227(a((D ase cam  citzeship (nd APCAO Change  ee The respndet a nate d ctizen  Keya appeas m the mmgratin Judges ac 27 20 decs deying his mtpe reests t chge enuee i dsmiss the appea. We ee r cear er te dings  ct cuding the deteminatn  crediit ade y te Immgrat Jdge 8 CFR § 00.(d((i (20. We reie de n a ther ssues cudng hether te partes ae met the eet urde  pr d issues  dscretin. 8 CF.R  00(d((ii The espndent as aded t the ited States as a mmgrt sdet n Agst
6,
2008 nd cnceded that he iated the cndts  hs status .J at ; Exh. ; Tr at .  additin the respndent signed a s sateet heren e admitted that he caied t e a citze  the Unted States n  mpymet Egt ericatn F (Frm 9 n rder t tan empment and checed the x idicatig that he as a "citzen  the nited States IJ. at -; Exs -5; Tr. at 47 Accrdingy he Immigratin udge as ud the espndent remae uder sectn 27(a((D  the Immigratin nd atnaity Act (Act 8 USC § 227(a((D (J at 4
1
n his tice  Appea the respdent as chaenged te gratin udge's decs t dey hs eqest r a cntinuace he recd reects that te respndet did t reuest a cntinuance at hs na herg ee e mgrat Judge and the mmgat udge grted hs pri requests  ctinuces (. at 90 40 452. Addtina the respdets appeate rie des nt discuss te decisin t den the cntinunce erere e  nt address the isse.
_M <

J 1Q=
q, 
·
 "
M
Cite as: Douglas Shitote, A200 224 343 (BIA March 6, 2014)
 
200 224 33
.
On appea, the esodent maitains that te Immgation Jdge erd  deyi his motios to hane venue (espt B at 6-9; Novmber 4, 2012 Moto Dme 9, 202 Moto; T at 33, -41) he mmgration Jde deed the motions ecase he ocludd tat eovablty was conesd (J. at 2 T at 41)
 See Chow

INS
12 3d 34 (5th Cir 1993) An Immaon Jde may  ood ase ode a change of vee upon moo by o of the pars, aer the hagn docmn as ee ld wh the mgaton Cout 8 C..  0320(b) Good as s dmined by balanng t owig tos admisatve conveen, expdtous teatme of the ase, the location of wtesses, ad h cost of tansorng wiesses or evdee o a ew loato
ee Me of Rhm
2 I& N De 480, 48283 (B 992) (ctig
 Me of Rver
9 N D 688 (IA 988)
 Mer of Velquez
19 &N D. 377 (BI 1986)). e mmgation Jdg did ot addrss these os. Adtona, w colue hat e Immigaion Jde's iance soey o
Chow
was msplaed In
Chow
h mmgration udge prmtted the spodet's atoey in aot stae to apea eephoiay and waivd the espondent's pesence, but oded that the rspodents origna atoey (who was in the sm stat as the Immigration Co) aear at the ang
Chow

INS, 
a 37 nde tes cicumstces, the ntd Staes Co o peals r th ih Ciit deteed that the Immigration Jdge dd ot abuse s disretion a uphd  Bord's deteiatio at it is ot nreasonabl r a Immratio Judge, i th exes o disretion, to dny a motio  a ane of venue whee e alns eportablit remas at isse
Id.
at 39 (amin
 Mer of Chow
2 & N e. 647, 652 (B 993)). I he cae su  judce, the mmigration Judg dd not alow the respondts outofstate atoey to appear tlephoncallyand dd not wave the spondets se. stad, the espondnt ad his atoey apparly had to travel, poentially eslting  sbstatial naia dfclty (T. at 31-33 )
 See Mer of hm
20 &N ec 8, 482 (BI 1992) (dscussn t pdi o t omen when detaines the ha o e asorted �nds of mles or eleased o aole) I additon, the espondent concedd movablity dr seto 237(a)()(C)(i) of the ct, suh that emovability was not at ssu ad jrsdtio bere he Immato Cout had been establsed (.. at 1  at 34)  Notwithstading he egoing pobems with the igation Judges decsion, we ulimatly ae with is onclusion that the espondnt's moio to hange venue was sported y good as (J at 2) Here, we not tat he espondent seks a ang of veu to rsue an applaon r adjstmnt of sats d seto 25 of h  (est  Nov 9, 22, Moon  a Chane of Venue espt D 2, 22, Amended Moto  a Change of Venu). Howver, to obtain adjuset of staus, th rsodnt bars th burde of esablshig that h is admissible
 See
8 C.  12.(d)
 Me of Zmo-Mo
25 & N De 606, 609 (BI 211) d setio 22(a)(6)(C)(i) of he ct, 8 .SC
§
 
(a))(C) i)  esonn is namss  e sy esn ms o e
a
td Ss itzen r any upos o bn  t ct o ay ohr federal o stat law   o e ecison to ssan he care unde ston 237(a)(3)(D) o h Act  ndng ta
2
he Immgatio ude apaently mistakey beleved at he ad anted the respodents rst moo o apea tlephoncaly ( a 3 ) wen  c  had dened he moton (T at 31). 2
Cite as: Douglas Shitote, A200 224 343 (BIA March 6, 2014)

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)//-->