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
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
B-J-G-, AXXX XXX 333 (BIA May 29, 2014)

B-J-G-, AXXX XXX 333 (BIA May 29, 2014)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,235|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that the respondent was eligible for cancellation of removal under INA 240A(b)(2)(A) for being subject to extreme cruelty by her U.S. citizen spouse. The Board found that although the respondent’s husband never physically abused her, his alcoholism and gambling led to sufficient psychological and verbal abuse to qualify under the statute. The decision was joined by Member Anne Greer and Member Molly Kendall-Clark. Member Patricia Cole dissented from the Board’s decision.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that the respondent was eligible for cancellation of removal under INA 240A(b)(2)(A) for being subject to extreme cruelty by her U.S. citizen spouse. The Board found that although the respondent’s husband never physically abused her, his alcoholism and gambling led to sufficient psychological and verbal abuse to qualify under the statute. The decision was joined by Member Anne Greer and Member Molly Kendall-Clark. Member Patricia Cole dissented from the Board’s decision.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index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 Jun 18, 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

08/08/2014

pdf

text

original

 
RECEVED
JUN
1
n
014
 Dp of uic
Athanasiou, Joy F Esq. Athanasiou Law Firm, LLC 940 Wadsworth Blvd, Site 300 Lakewood, CO 80214
eutive Oe  Iigation Review
Boad of I11igtio Appas Oc of h Ck
507 Leburg Pik, Sut 2000 ls Chuch Vgna 030
HS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel
DEN 2445 East Caley Avenue Centennial, CO 80-5663 Name: G, B J A 333 Date of this notice 529/204
nosed is a op ote Boads deision and ode in te aboveeened ase. nosue
Panel Mmbrs: C,  A G A J K-Ck y
Sinee Dona Ca Cie Ce
T t k
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
Cite as: B-J-G-, AXXX XXX 333 (BIA May 29, 2014)
 
US p of uic
Executive Oce r Immigraion Review Decision of he Boad o mmigaion Appeal Falls Chch, Viginia
20530
File 333 -Denver CO In re B J G IN RMOVL PROCDINGS PPL ON BLF OF RSPONDNT Jo F tanasio sqire ON BLF OF DS Ivan Gardzelewsi ssistant Cie Consel PPLICTION Canellation o removal Date
MAY
2 9
2014
Te respondent a native and itizen o Trinidad and Tobago appeals te Immigration Jdges deision o Deember 19 2011 dening er appliation r anellation o emoval nder setion 240(b)(2)() o te Immigration and Nationalit t 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)() Te appeal will be sstained. Te reord will be remanded r bagrond and serit es We review r lear error te ndings o t inlding te determination o redibilit made b te Immigration Jdge 8 CF.R. § 1003l(d)(3)(i). We review de novo all oter isses inlding weter te parties ave met teir brden o proo and isses o disretion 8 C.FR. § 1003l(d)(3)(ii) Bease te respondents appliation was led aer Ma 11 2005 (x. 3 Form OIR-42B) it is goveed b te provisions o te RL ID t.
Matter of Almanza,
24 I&N De. 771 (BI 2009) t isse is weter te respondent establised tat se was sbjeted to extreme relt b er United States itizen sband sient to meet te standard r speial rle anellation o removal r a battered spose. We onlde tat te respondent is eligible r anellation o removal Under setion 240(b )(2)() o te t anellation oremoval ma be granted i te alien demonstrates inter alia tat se as been battered or sbjeted to extreme relt b er United States itizen spose. Te respondent testied tat er sband wom se mied in 2002 as never psiall absed er (Tr at 137; Resp Br at 2). owever te respondent testied extensivel abot er sbands aloolism and gambling addition wi as led to ears o psologial and verbal abse (Tr. at 126139) Te Immigration Jdge onlded tat te respondents sbands ations were best desribed as "iesponsible rater tan "extremel rel (I.J. at 3). We disagree. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.l(d)(3)(ii). Te United States Cort o ppeals r te Tent Cirit were tis ase arises as reognized tat a determination o weter partilar ondt rises to te level o "extreme relt reqires an exerise o disretionar jdgment tat sold be emploed on a
Cite as: B-J-G-, AXXX XXX 333 (BIA May 29, 2014)
 
 333 case-bycase basis
See PealesCumpean
v.
Gonzales
429 F3d 977 983
(I
0th Cir. 2005) (holding that there is no "hard-and-st rule to distinguish 'extreme cruelty om other, less severe rms of cel behavior and thus it is vital to allow r the exercise of agency discretion) In this case the husbands alcoholism has caused the respondent extreme stress and anxiety. For instance, the respondent testied that her husbands severe alcoholism puts himself and others in danger when he drives has isolated her socially, and results in an "aggressive demeanor towards her (Tr at 126-28) His alcoholism her exacerbates a compulsive gambling habit that oen causes him to psychologically abuse the respondent and continually places her welre at risk (Tr. at 131-33). We have previously held that Congress intended the Violence Against Women Act ("VA WA) to eliminate immigration laws that prevented battered spouses and children om leaving abusive relationships or om seeking help om law enrcement because they were aaid that they would be depoed or that their abusers would withdraw sponsorship r a paricular immigration benet
See Mae of AM-,
25 I&N Dec. 66 73 (BIA 2009). Thus, a key purpose of the VA WA was to "improve access to immigration relief r groups of batered immigrant spouses and children who were not previously eligible.
Id.
In this case the Immigration Judge touched briey upon the respondents previous attempt to adjust her status based upon a visa petition r immediate relative led on her behalf by her husband (I.J at 1-2) However, the respondent provides additional details on appeal which were unchallenged by the Department of Homeland Securitys ("DHSs) reply brief regarding her husbands ilure to support her adjustment of status application due to is alcoholism (Resp Br at 2-3) The husbands actions constitute extreme cruelty. The long-term impact of the husbands alcoholism and gambling addiction on her psychological, emotional, and nancial well-being is a compelling testament supporting a grant of her application r cancellation of removal under section 240A(b )(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Act Nothing bere us indicates that the respondent has not otherwise met the statutory requirements r eligibility of cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(2)(A) of the Act. We rther conclude that the record contains sucient evidence that the respondent merits a discretionary grant of cancellation of removal including the Immigration Judges grant ofvolunta depaure (I.J at 3) Accordingly the record will be remanded solely to conduct the necessary background and security checks ORDER: The appeal is sustained and the respondent is granted cancellation of removal FURTHER ORDER Pursuant to 8 CF.R. § 1003l(d)(6) the record is remanded to the Immigration Judge r the purpose of allowing the Department of Homeland Security the
1
The record rther supports the respondents arguments in this regard
(see
Motion to Continue Individual Hearing and Reuest r Acceptance of Untimely Filing submitted to the Immigration Co on uly 14 201 ). 2
Cite as: B-J-G-, AXXX XXX 333 (BIA May 29, 2014)

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
chapalaw liked this
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)//-->