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
Felipe Gomez-Alonzo, A200 144 055 (BIA Mar. 26, 2014)

Felipe Gomez-Alonzo, A200 144 055 (BIA Mar. 26, 2014)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 272|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded for further consideration the respondent's motion to reopen proceedings at which he was ordered removed in absentia. The Board stated that the must demonstrate that his failure to appear hearing was because of exceptional circumstances, including ineffective assistance of counsel. The decision was written by Member Elise Manuel and joined by Member Sharon Hoffman and Member John Guendelsberger.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded for further consideration the respondent's motion to reopen proceedings at which he was ordered removed in absentia. The Board stated that the must demonstrate that his failure to appear hearing was because of exceptional circumstances, including ineffective assistance of counsel. The decision was written by Member Elise Manuel and joined by Member Sharon Hoffman and Member John Guendelsberger.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index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 Apr 02, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/15/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Berg, Royal F Law Oices of Royal F. Berg 33 N. LaSalle St, Suite 2300 Chicao, IL 60602 Name: GOMEZALONZO, FELIPE
U tt  Jt
Executive Oce r Imgrion Reew
Bd  Immigin pp Oc h Ck
 ehug Pik Su   als u " 
HS/ICE Oice o Cie Counsel HI 525 West Van Buren Street Chicago, IL 60607 A 200-144-055 Date o this notice: 3/2/2014
cosed s a copy of he Board's decso ad orde   aboe-rreced case. closure
  oan haron ane le enelerer oh
Scerey,
c
Doa Car if lrk
 oe
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
Cite as: Felipe Gomez-Alonzo, A200 144 055 (BIA Mar. 26, 2014)
 
U 

  xv
f 
g vw    Bd   A
·
Fl Ch V
20530
Fle: 200 44 055
-
Chcago,
I
e L -LONZO
EMV PROCEEDGS PE Date ON BEHF OF SPDENT  yal F Berg sqre ON BF OF DH PPLICATION: Reopeng Coleen Peppd Assstant Chef Counsel
R 2
 2014
he respondent, a natve and ctzen of atemala, has appealed om the Immaton Judge's decson dated November 2, 203 he Immgaton Jdge dened as untey the respondent's moton to reopen poceedngs n wch he as order removed n absenta On appeal, the respondent ges that s moton was tmey d rhe that he eabshed eceptonal ccustances  hs falue to appeaat hs hearng The Depament of Homed
ecrty submtted a respose to the respondent's appea, agreeng th the responde's appelate argment that hs moton was tmely, d ndcatng ts non-opposto to a remd  the Imaton ge to consder ether te respondent estabshed eceptona crcmstaces he DHS he uged that the respondent had not estabshed eceptona cmstaces We wl sstan the appeal and remand the record to the Immgaton dge  he t-ndng The Imaton Jdge dened the respondent's moton as untmely, nasmuch as he und tat the oton was led more tha 80 days aer hs n absenta order Howeve the rerd reects tha the esondent's moton to eopen as led on Oobe  203 less than 80 days ae hs May 7 203 n absenta order, ad he rased a clam of eceptonal ccumstces r s ure to appe

8 CFR § 0032()()( ccodngly e concde that the respondent's oton s tmely, nd we wll vacate the  aton Jdge's decson ndng oherwse e the respondent demonstred that he tmely led e present moton to pen d rescnd s  absenta remova order, e mst also demonstrate that s lre to appe at hs heng was because of eceptona crcmstances, whch may ncude neeve assstace of ounse
 
e eonde as ee  n s m n a h eeeve e e  eng f the May  203 heng date however, hs aoey dd not or m of hs
I
ths egd we note that the recod does not contn a Notce of Entry of ppeance as Aoey or Representatve Bere the Igraton Cou o EO-28 om the respondt's aoey bere the mmgraton Judge so as to essh that notce of te heng wa prpey seed on the respondent's aoey of record
W
Cite as: Felipe Gomez-Alonzo, A200 144 055 (BIA Mar. 26, 2014)
 
P
144 55 eaing date.
The Immiaon Judge howeve, dd not make an nding of fact with ept to hethe the epondent eablihed excepional cicumtce. ven ou limited tnding ili on appeal e wl emand the od to he miation Judge  conideation of hete he eponden ealihed exceptiona cicmtance to explain i ilue o appea a hi Ma 7, 2013 heaing
See Maer of MP
2 I& Dec. 786 IA 994 (nding hat an Immiation Judge mu l expain he eaon  dening a moion in ode to lo he eponden a fai opponit to cone the eciion and e Bod
opponi meaningl appellate eview;
see alo Matte o AP
22 I& ec. 468 47 A 999 Accodingl the llowing ode wll e entee OR Te eponden'appeal  aned d e Immigaion Juge ovembe 21 213 deciion i vacated. RR OR Thee emoval poceeding ae eopened and he eco i emanded to he Immiaion Cou  he conideation of the eponden moion o pen conitent with the egoing opinion and  te ent of a new deiion.
We alo note  the eponden did no compl wit the pocedua equemen et h in
Matte of Loz
19 I& Dec 63 (IA 1988) o a to etablih hi ineective aitance of counel claim. 2
Cite as: Felipe Gomez-Alonzo, A200 144 055 (BIA Mar. 26, 2014)

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)//-->