P. 1
Safraz Khan, A043 452 893 (BIA Aug. 14, 2013)

Safraz Khan, A043 452 893 (BIA Aug. 14, 2013)

|Views: 243|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) declined to exercise jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal filed by the Department of Homeland Security challenging the decision of an immigration judge to administratively close proceedings against a detained respondent while he was awaiting the adjudication of a U visa application filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The decision was written by Member David Holmes.
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) declined to exercise jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal filed by the Department of Homeland Security challenging the decision of an immigration judge to administratively close proceedings against a detained respondent while he was awaiting the adjudication of a U visa application filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The decision was written by Member David Holmes.

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on Aug 22, 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, Suite 1000 Falls Church, Virginia 21041

Antonio Bugge,Esq. 2964 Aviation Avenue, Suite 300 Miami,FL 33133

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel -KRO 18201 SW 12th St. Miami, FL 33194

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name:KHAN,SAFRAZ

A 043-452-893

Date of this notice: 8/14/2013

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

DonrtL ca.NL)
Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure
Panel Members: Holmes, David B.

yungc
Userteam: Docket

\

Cite as: Safraz Khan, A043 452 893 (BIA Aug. 14, 2013)

U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office ofthe Clerk
5107 Leesb11rg Pike, S11ite 2000 Falls. Church, Virginia 22041

KHAN, SAFRAZ A043-452-893 KROME 18201 S.W. 12TH STREET MIAMI, FL 33194

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel -KRO 18201 SW 12th St. Miami, FL 33194

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name:KHAN,SAFRAZ

A 043-452-893

Date of this notice: 8/14/2013

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision in the above-referenced case. This copy is being provided to you as a courtesy. Your attorney or representative has been served with this decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.S(a). If the attached decision orders that you be removed from the United States or affirms an Immigration Judge's decision ordering that you be removed, any petition for review of the attached decision must be filed with and received by the appropriate court of appeals within 30 days of the date of the decision. Sincerely,

DonnL ct1/LA)
Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure
Panel Members:

Holmes, David B.

yungc Userteam: Docket

Cite as: Safraz Khan, A043 452 893 (BIA Aug. 14, 2013)

..

·

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

Decision of the Board oflmmigration Appeals

File:

A043 452 893 - Miami, FL

Date:

AUG 14 2013

In re: SAFRAZ KHAN IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF DHS: Antonio Bugge, Esquire Christian M. Pressman Assistant Chief Counsel

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has filed an interlocutory appeal from the Immigration Judge's June 4, 2013, decision administratively closing the case awaiting adjudication of a U visa application filed with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The DHS argues that the Immigration Judge abused her discretion in administratively closing this case because the respondent is detained at government expense, and the nature of his criminal history severely compromises the likelihood that he will succeed in being granted relief from removal. To avoid piecemeal review of the multiple queries that may arise during the course of removal proceedings, ordinarily the Board does not entertain interlocutory appeals.

Matter of M-D-,

See

24 I&N Dec. 138, 139 (BIA 2007), and cases cited therein.

We have on

Matter ofDobere,

occasion accepted interlocutory appeals to address significant jurisdictional questions about the administration of the immigration laws, or to correct recurring problems in the handling of cases by Immigration Judges. See, e.g., Matter ofGuevara, 20 I&N Dec. 238 (BIA 1990, 1991); 20 I&N Dec. 188 (BIA 1990). The issue of whether the Immigration Judge Nor does it involve a recurring problem in

properly administratively closed this case does not present a significant jurisdictional question about the administration of the immigration laws. Immigration Judges' handling of cases. jurisdiction. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the record be returned to the Immigration Court without further action. Thus, the question raised in this interlocutory appeal

does not fall within the limited ambit of cases where we deem it appropriate to exercise our

FOR THE BOARD

Cite as: Safraz Khan, A043 452 893 (BIA Aug. 14, 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)//-->