P. 1
William Noe Perez-Cortez, A205 383 123 (BIA Sept. 25, 2013)

William Noe Perez-Cortez, A205 383 123 (BIA Sept. 25, 2013)

|Views: 138|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed the denial of a motion to reopen an order of removal issued in absentia where the respondent, who was residing in New York at the time of his hearing, was unable to attend his hearing in Texas on October 30, 2012, due to exceptional circumstances (i.e. Hurricane Sandy). The decision was written by Member David Holmes.
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed the denial of a motion to reopen an order of removal issued in absentia where the respondent, who was residing in New York at the time of his hearing, was unable to attend his hearing in Texas on October 30, 2012, due to exceptional circumstances (i.e. Hurricane Sandy). The decision was written by Member David Holmes.

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on Sep 30, 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
510 7 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 22041

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - HLG 1717 Zoy Street Harlingen, TX 78552

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: PEREZ-CORTEZ, WILLIAM NOE

A 205-383-123

Date of this notice: 9/25/2013

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

Don.JtL ct1IVL)
Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure Panel Members: Holmes, David 8.

yungc Usertea m: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: William Noe Perez-Cortez, A205 383 123 (BIA Sept. 25, 2013)

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

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

File: - A205 383 123 - Harlingen, TX
In re:

Date:

sn: 2 5 ZOi3
WILLIAM NOE PEREZ-CORTEZ

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF DHS:

Pro se

Gabriel A. Courie! Assistant Chief Counsel

ORDER: The respondent has filed an appeal of an Immigration Judge's decision, which denied his timely motion to reopen removal proceedings, conducted in absentia. The respondent had argued That that he failed to appear for his October 30, 2012, hearing due to exceptional circumstances. inclement weather caused by Hurricane Sandy. The Department of Homeland Security (the "DHS") has filed a '1Notice of Non-Opposition", in which it states that it is unopposed to the respondent's appeal. of the removal hearing. The DHS observes that the Immigration Judge considered that the respondent maintained an address in California at the time However, the DHS states, a search of DHS records indicates that the Thus, the DHS states, at respondent was reporting on an Order of Supervision to the DHS office in New York City, and the respondent may have earlier provided a New York address to the DHS. weather situation created by Hurricane Sandy. In light of the DHS' position in this matter, the record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for the respondent to have a hearing on the charges contained in the Notice to Appear. the time of the removal hearing the respondent was residing in New York and subject to the

is, the respondent argued, he was unable to travel from New York to Harlingen, Texas, due to

FOR THE BOARD

Cite as: William Noe Perez-Cortez, A205 383 123 (BIA Sept. 25, 2013)

� I

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRATION COURT 2009 W. JEFFERSON AVE, HARLINGEN, TX STE 300 78550

PEREZ-CORTEZ, 9 TEEPEE RD ROCK POINT,

WILLIAM NOE 11778

NY

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

IN THE MATTER OF PEREZ-CORTEZ, WILLIAM NOE -

FILE A 205-383-123

DATE:

Apr 11,

2013

UNABLE TO FORWARD

NO ADDRESS PROVIDED THIS DECISION

ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE.

IS FINAL UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED WITH THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE MAILING OF THIS WRITTEN DECISION. SEE THE ENCLOSED FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPERLY PREPARING YOUR APPEAL. ATTACHED DOCUMENTS, OFFICE OF THE CLERK P.O. BOX 8530 FALLS CHURCH, VA 22041
AND FEE OR FEE WAIVER REQUEST

YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL, MUST BE MAILED TO:

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE AS THE RESULT OF YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT YOUR SCHEDULED DEPORTATION OR REMOVAL HEARING. THIS DECISION IS FINAL UNLESS A MOTION TO REOPEN IS FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 242B(c) (3) SECTION 1252B(c) (3) 8 U.S.C. SECTION TO REOPEN, OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, 8 U.S.C. IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS OR SECTION 240(c)

1229a(c)

(6)

(6),

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS.

IF YOU FILE A MOTION

YOUR MOTION MUST BE FILED WITH THIS COURT: IMMIGRATION COURT . 2009 W. JEFFERSON AVE, TX 78550 STE 300 HARLINGEN,

vo;HER:

IMMIGRATION COURT CC: ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL 1717 ZOY ST. HARLINGEN, TX, 785520000

FF

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW HARLINGEN IMMIGRATION COURT 2009 WEST JEFFERSON AVENUE, SUITE 300 HARLINGEN, TEXAS 7 INTIIE MATIER OF William Noe Perez-Cortez RESPONDENT APPLICATIONS: Motion to Reopen ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT Assistant Chief Counsel 1717 Zoy St. Harlingen, TX 78552 ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE On October 30, 2012, the Court ordered the respondent removed to El Salvador in
absentia pursuant to section 240(b)(5)(A) of the Act. The respondent submitted a letter to the

) ) ) ) )

April

� �

2013

Case Number: A205-383-123

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Pro Se-William Noe Perez-Cortez
9 Teepee Rd. Rocky Point, NY 11778

Court requesting reopening of his removal proceedings due to exceptional circumstances. The respondent's motion will be denied. In his motion to reopen, respondent does not argue lack of notice. Rather, the respondent argues that his failure to appear should be excused because of the exceptional circumstance of Hurricane Sandy interrupting his travel from New York. 1 However, the respondent has not submitted any evidence of his intent to travel or of his travel disruptions. Thus, the Court finds that the respondent has not shown that exceptional circumstances prevented his attendance at his October 30, 2012, removal hearing. The Court also concludes that the circumstances of this case do not warrant of the Court's limited sua sponte authority. See Matter
an

exercise

of J-J-, 21 l&N

Dec. 976 (BIA 1997).

Accordingly, the following order shall be entered: ORDER: The respondent's motion to reopen is DENIED.

David Ayala United States Imm

a

1

It should be noted that the respondent continues to maintain a Los Angeles, CA mailing address with the Court.

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)//-->