P. 1
Gustavo Alexis Murillo-Borjas, A097 744 763 (BIA July 30, 2013)

Gustavo Alexis Murillo-Borjas, A097 744 763 (BIA July 30, 2013)

|Views: 169|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) granted a joint interlocutory appeal of a denial of a joint motion for administrative closure because the immigration judge's order set forth no basis or rationale warranting the denial of the motion. The decision was written by Member David Holmes and joined by Member Neil Miller and Member Molly Kendall-Clark.
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) granted a joint interlocutory appeal of a denial of a joint motion for administrative closure because the immigration judge's order set forth no basis or rationale warranting the denial of the motion. The decision was written by Member David Holmes and joined by Member Neil Miller and Member Molly Kendall-Clark.

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on Aug 02, 2013
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

10/12/2013

pdf

text

original

U.S.

Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office ofthe Clerk
5107 leesburg Pike, Sulle 2000 Falls Church. Virginia 220.//

Zoltan, Paul S., Esq. Law Offices of Paul S. Zoltan P.O. Box 821118 Dallas, TX 75382

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - DAL 125 E. John Carpenter Fwy, Ste. 500 Irving, TX 75062-2324

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: MURILLO-BORJAS, GUSTAVO ...

A 097-744-763

Date of this notice: 7/30/2013

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case. Sincerely,

DOrt!U- CtVvV
Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure Panel Members: Holmes, David B. Miller, Neil P. Kendall-Clark, Molly

Lulseges Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Gustavo Alexis Murillo-Borjas, A097 744 763 (BIA July 30, 2013)

U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Decision of the Board oflmmigration Appeals

Files: A097 744 763

-

Dallas, TX

Date:

JUL 3 0 2013

In re: GUSTAVO ALEXIS MURILLO-BORJAS IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF DHS: Paul S. Zoltan, Esquire

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Dan Gividen Assistant Chief Counsel

APPLICATION: Administrative closure

The Department of Homeland Security (OHS) and the respondent have jointly filed an interlocutory appeal from the Immigration Judge's February 5, 2013, order that granted the parties' motion to reopen these proceedings, but denied the parties' motion to administratively close the reopened proceedings. To avoid piecemeal review of the myriad of questions which may arise in the course of proceedings before us, this Board does not ordinarily entertain interlocutory appeals. See Matter of Ruiz-Campuzano, 17 I&N Dec. 108 (BIA 1979). We have, however, on occasion ruled on the merits of interlocutory appeals where we deemed it necessary 2 to correct recurring problems in the handling of cases by Immigration Judges. See e.g., Matter of Guevara, 20 l&N Dec. 238 (BIA 1990, 1991); Matter of Dobere, 20 I&N Dec. 188 (BIA 1990). We will entertain this appeal and vacate the Immigration Judge's order insofar as that order denied the parties' joint motion to administratively close the proceedings. While an Immigration Judge has the ultimate authority to deny a joint motion filed by the parties, the Immigration Judge's order does not reflect that he accorded any weight or consideration to the factual circumstances presented in the parties' motion or to the agreement of the parties as to the appropriate course of action in Dec these 688 proceedings. (BIA 2012), Further, other than a citation to Judge's

Matter ofAvetisyan,

25 I&N

regarding an Immigration

responsibility for exercising independent judgment and responsibility in considering a motion to administratively close proceedings and a conclusory statement that the parties' motion "failed to provide a legal basis for administratively closing proceedings," the Immigration Judge's order sets forth no basis or rationale that would warrant the denial of the joint motion. Given the circumstances presented, the joint motion to administratively close these proceedings will be granted.

1

adequate notice, which implicitly rescinded his June 7, 2004,
2

The Immigration Judge granted the motion to reopen the proceedings based on a lack of in absentia order of removal.

The OHS has submitted a motion for concurrent consideration of 13 other unrelated cases presenting a similar issue that we do not find necessary to address in the context of this

interlocutory appeal.

Cite as: Gustavo Alexis Murillo-Borjas, A097 744 763 (BIA July 30, 2013)

A097 744 763

ORDER: The appeal is sustained and the proceedings are administratively closed. If either party to this case wishes to reinstate the proceedings, a written request to reinstate the proceedings may be made to the Board. The Board will take no further action in the case unless a request is received from one of the parties. The request must be submitted directly to the Clerk's Office, without fee, but with certification of service on the opposing party. FURTHER ORDER: Given the Immigration Judge's February 5, 2013, order, the June 7,

200�, order of removal in these proceedings is rescinded.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

� -----FOR THE BOARD

2

Cite as: Gustavo Alexis Murillo-Borjas, A097 744 763 (BIA July 30, 2013)

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)//-->