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
Brett Richard Godke, A059 435 050 (BIA May 16, 2014)

Brett Richard Godke, A059 435 050 (BIA May 16, 2014)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 785|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that the immigration judge erred in finding the respondent abandoned his petition to lift the conditions on his residency (Form I-751). The Board stated that the immigration judge should have reviewed the existing petition submitted to USCIS and provided the respondent an opportunity to submit additional evidence in support of the petition. The decision was written by Member Elise Manuel and joined by Member John Guendelsberger and by Member Sharon Hoffman.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that the immigration judge erred in finding the respondent abandoned his petition to lift the conditions on his residency (Form I-751). The Board stated that the immigration judge should have reviewed the existing petition submitted to USCIS and provided the respondent an opportunity to submit additional evidence in support of the petition. The decision was written by Member Elise Manuel and joined by Member John Guendelsberger and by Member Sharon Hoffman.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index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

10/13/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Freshwate, Parica Esq. Schwamkrug reshwaer
&
Lopez PLC P

Box 796844 Daa TX 75379 Name: GODKE BRT ICHARD
U Dpartmt  Jusic Exv   g Rw
Bd  Ig ppls Q  h Ch Ck
507 Leburg Pik. Sut 00 Falls Churc, Vrgmi 
HS/CE Offce of Chef Counsel DAL 123 E Joh Capeer wy Ste 500 g TX 75062-34 A 05935050 ate o thi Notce 5/16/2014
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decison and ordr in te abov-referenced case. Encosure Pane Members: Gendelsberger, Jon Hofman Saon Manl Eise ncerey, Donna Car Ce Cek
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
Cite as: Brett Richard Godke, A059 435 050 (BIA May 16, 2014)
 
U.S. at of JtcExve
 
 r n Rview Dn 
 Bd
 mn A
' Fl
u V 53
 Fie A059 435 050 Dlas,
re: BTT CD ODK aka. B ode
OVL PROCGS PPE  Dae O BEHLF OF SODT Pacia Freshwaer, Esquire
MAY 1 6
24
PLICATO: Jo pition to remove condiional basis of residence o 75) e responden apeals om an Immiation Judg's decision dated Augst 13, 2012, ndi that he
abandoned his eition o emove he conditional basis of his lawl pe 
en esidence sas o -75), a is aplication r vouy dure was andon, d ordeig is emov to India The appl will be susained, d he rod wll  be remand to he Iaion Jude r her prongs e Bod reews an Immiation Judges ndngs of

ncuding ndgs  o he credibiliy of tesimony, und he "cle eoneous sdd 8 CF
§
003 (dX3)(i) The Bod revews questions of law, discreion nd jude d al oth ises in appeas om decisions of Immation Judes de novo 8 CF
§
003 (d)(3)(ii) We ee wih he espondents ment on appeal at the appicable regaios do not rure  im to e a new orm I-751 piio nd at e Immiaion Judg should have reewed d adudicated the oin pio hat had been dened by the ted Ses mmgration d Citizesip Seice ("USCS) on December 21, 200 (ich  in the record  Ex )
1
rah th ndig hat he had abandoed the appication bause he did o e a new appication
 e repondent pois o the plicable regations prvide r rvie in  emov procings of joipition under son 216( c )( ) of he A not ogin jisdicion over such peions
See
8 CF
§
264(d)(2) Thus, we a t the  iaon Judge, rather n sein a deadline r a n peion to be ed, shoud hve aowe r the bmission of ew evence n suppo o the peiion d considered he evidence tha wa bmied red in conjuncion ih e Moion to Reopen led in Juy 203.
Se, e.g  Maer of He"era d/ Odn
 25 &N Dec. 589
(I
 201) (provdig that, in reviewig the  USCIS decision regding a 26 peition to wive he oin linreqrement mmiation Jude shoud alow the ien to inroduce dition evdence in suppo of the ption).
oc o the d was mae o e espoden o J 7 21 x. )
2
e ao poi out ere is some indiction by bo e resondent d his wfe that he ime requeed rpeng of he Ju
7,
 2010 andonment deiaion
(Moon
 s F & G). other option on emand, ere, is to onsid whher admnsive co or coninuce of hs mat is aanted to ow r djudicaion of tha peg uest
ee general Maer of Avetis
 25 &N Dec 6
(I
 202);
 Mar of Hhi
 24 N  Dec. 75
(
 2009).
Cite as: Brett Richard Godke, A059 435 050 (BIA May 16, 2014)
 
AO9
435 050
n
 view of his detenation e colue that  abanoent ning was not apppate i hs cse en hough he repondent indiaed  inent to le a join peion but did not meet e deadine r ing a petion wih e Immiaion Co.
3
er he join po in  he ror shoud have een revewed er oporniy was provided o the respoet o subt additioa evidence in upo o that pion Bas o he regoing we will sutain he appeal d rema r her consiato o  he I-751 joit pion d we need not reach the question of hther good se was sho r a connuce The llowig or is enered OER: The appe is sustned a the record  remanded o he Imiaton Cou r h proceedis conite t his dision nd r e ey o a ew dision
 FOR
T
BOA
3
We also point ot   abanonment nding regdin voluntary e based on he falue to le an applcaon r anoth  of reie woud no ordiily be appropae  without ovidig e respoent a opporniy r a vounty depre heing ince the is o sepate applcaio r vouty dere
Cite as: Brett Richard Godke, A059 435 050 (BIA May 16, 2014)

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
chapalaw liked this

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)//-->