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
Tomas Ramirez, A026 843 980 (BIA July 31, 2014)

Tomas Ramirez, A026 843 980 (BIA July 31, 2014)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 18 |Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded for further consideration of the respondent's adjustment application, finding that his failure to submit supporting documentation was not grounds to consider the application itself abandoned under Matter of Interiano-Rosa, 25 I&N Dec. 264 (BIA 2010). The Board stated that the immigration judge had discretion on remand whether to consider documents submitted on appeal. The decision was written by Member Roger Pauley and joined by Member Teresa Donovan and Member Linda Wendtland.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded for further consideration of the respondent's adjustment application, finding that his failure to submit supporting documentation was not grounds to consider the application itself abandoned under Matter of Interiano-Rosa, 25 I&N Dec. 264 (BIA 2010). The Board stated that the immigration judge had discretion on remand whether to consider documents submitted on appeal. The decision was written by Member Roger Pauley and joined by Member Teresa Donovan and Member Linda Wendtland.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index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

10/01/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Chung H. Lee, Esqire The Law Oce of Lee and Associates 3412 Duluth Hghway, Suite 120 Duluth, GA 30096-0000 Name: RAMIREZ OAS
   
Executive Oce r Imigration Review
Bd  mmg A Oc  h Ck
 5107 Leesburg Pike, Sute 2000 Fal Chc Vgn 20530
HS/ICE Oice o Chie Cousel AL 180 Sping Steet Suite 332 tla, G 30303 A 026-843980 Date of is noice: 7 31 2014
nclosed is a copy of he Boar's decision and ore i the above-reece case. close
P Mb: v T L y Rg W L 
Sinceel, Donna Car Cief Clerk
: k
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
Cite as: Tomas Ramirez, A026 843 980 (BIA July 31, 2014)
 
US Dm of Jus
Executive Oc
r
mmgraon Reew Decson f e Bard maon Appeals Fas Chc, Vgna
5
ie A026 843 980 Aan GA Dae:
JUL 31
2014
re TOMAS
Z
a.k.a Tms Rire Mrda aka Thms Frsisc
I
 REMOVL PROCEEDGS AEAL D OTN N EHALF OF RESPODET Chung
H.
Lee, Esquire O BEHLF OF DHS CHARGE:  chle Lilrdge Asssn CheCuse  ce: Se 2a)6)A)), & c [8 US.C § 82a)6)A)()] resen wiu beng ame r pe PPLCTIO Remnd adusmen  saus The resnden s a naive  ctzen  Mexc. He apes m  Mch 5, 20 mmigran Juge ecisn decning  acep ae-ed dcumens d eeing abdne his 60  r waver  inadmss an 8 apicatn r adse  saus. The Imgratn udge nted u a, dese  sec wng that he ure  me e cmens wd be cnsdered n nen f hs pcans he respnden d n mee  he crdered deadnes. We wl rem the rerd r her prceengs. The respnen enere he Une Ses wu nspecn n an w ate The resnen ed  85 apcain r adusen  staus n vember , 006. ecause  he ing ae, the respndents cams are gveed b e aedmens  he Ac rugh au b the passage  e REL D c  2005
 
-B
4 & Dec 2  2006) O cber 5 09 he ie Sates Czenship  Immgran Sees "USCIS) denie he respndens apian ecase he hd ed  prvide reqese and require evdence  eigb. Specal, USCIS ha requese evene m he resen n ugs 9 7 ad Ma  29,  he rm  r th he hd pa a nes n cmpeed a tes   prban reated  hs ests r driving ner he inuence "U) n Sepember  988  , 99 December 8 99, d A 3, 997 Ex. 4  T  Tr. at ) n u 
20
he respnent as sue  tce  pear r rem rceengs Exh. ) n appea  the remva rer entered n Mch
20
 the resne gues a the mmgrn uge vae s ue prcess rghts b  cceing his dcments n he recr
d
 eeing his ree pcains abned. e respnde as sums nuerus cumens n aea d ass a we remn e rer.  Dng e prceeds ethe Immgrtn udge t e een

e  nee   gve hs e e needed cumes s ht e cud e tme led e mmigrn udge rmed e respnent ha e dcues wu n e aceped te  a
Cite as: Tomas Ramirez, A026 843 980 (BIA July 31, 2014)
 
,
A26 843 980 timely submissio woud cause ay application to be consiere abdoned (Tr at ).
ition, the Immigratio Judge issued a writen prerial order ifomig the responent at he had 3 days om the date of he Apil , 201, order, to provide proof that his appicatio ha  bee led with USCIS, and had until 30 days bere the date of he hering to le the ppicatio nd suppoig documets with he co in order to avoi his appicatios being consiere abdoned (E 3)
See
8 C..R. § 103.2{b). O August 25, 21, he Immigrato Judge accepted into evience wihout objection he  Depet of Homea Secuty's("DS) copies of e -485 enial leer and e respoent's 206 adjusment of sas appic tion · suppoing ocmen, which DHS had itiay led with e mmigratio ou i November 201 (Tr at 7 Exh 4). On Mch 9, 212, the respondent moved to continue proceedings, ssring at he had ot bee able to oban or provide ay of the requested additional documets (Tr at 2; Exh 5), which motio e Immigratio Judge denied At the subsequent heng o Mach 5, 22, he Immiation uge pointed out hat e respondets asserio hat DS had not submie copies of e ol appicatio  dena leer was incorrect ecause DHS had led em i November 2010 an  the were accepte ito evience i August 21 (Tr at 12-15). The Immigration Judge also  pointed out that it w the respondent's burde and ot DHSs to proie eviece regig he  DUI conictios (Tr at 3-14) The respondets counse aempte to proer all the requested documets at the heig, asseing at the respondent oly had give him the ocuments a w days ere Te respodet admied that he had ot provided his aoey with the necessar documens unti 3 days previously (Tr. at 12-13, 16-17, 21; .J. at 2 e mmigatio Juge hen deemed e responet's appicatios abanoned because he had fe to low he mmiation Judge's orers reging timey submission of documens (Tr at 2; J at 2-3). We are not persuaded by he respoent's gment at the mmiatio Judge vioate his ight to due process by eciig to accept his late-led documens. Specically, the respodent ad een o notice since 207 that S nee   ocumets reated to his DU convictions, d
.
'
he had h since Apri 21 to submit those ad oter documents to the mmiatio Judge The respondet provided no reasoable expaatio  his ilure o low e mmiation Juge's orers or r his untimey submission of he requested documets r he proceeings Thus, e Imigration Judge's decision to ecie to accept e late-led documens w poper. 8 CR § 03.3(c This did ot constitute a due process iolation or ndermine the dena faess of e proceedigs ecause the respondet had yes to sumit the requested materias d o adequate excuse r ot timely providing em.
Mater of
G-,
2 &N Dec 764, 78081 (BIA 1993;
see also Matter o Ineriano-Rosa
25 I&N Dec 26, 266 (BIA 2010)  Neveheess, we will remad the ecord i order r the mmiation udge to ajuicate he respondent's applications r reliefThe Board has concluded in a precedentia decisio hat whe
alictio r eef is time led ut the supoig documets e not ed wi  the ordered time ame, then
Immiation Judge ma deem e oppor to le e supporing documents waived, t may not deem  pplication itself abdoed
Mer o   Interano-Rosa, supra,
at 266. As discussed aove, e Immgatio Judge propery declined to
accept
e respodent's lteed supplementary documents But istea of deemig bandoed he respondent's ppicatios r adjuset of staus ad wver of inamissibiiy, he Immiation uge shod have dete  ined what eect he respoents fue o sumt e requested docets ha o his aii �  to meet _ his be of proof d wheher he merits reef 2
Cite as: Tomas Ramirez, A026 843 980 (BIA July 31, 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)//-->