P. 1
Luis Perez, A200 687 958 (BIA Oct. 3, 2013)

Luis Perez, A200 687 958 (BIA Oct. 3, 2013)

|Views: 328|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied the respondent’s motion to reopen upon finding that the granting of a petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) did not constitute an “admission” for purposes of determining inadmissibility in removal proceedings. The decision was written by Member Neil Miller.
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied the respondent’s motion to reopen upon finding that the granting of a petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) did not constitute an “admission” for purposes of determining inadmissibility in removal proceedings. The decision was written by Member Neil Miller.

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on Oct 25, 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

11/14/2013

pdf

text

original

U.S.

Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office ofthe Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 20530

Cruz, Henry, Esq. Rios Cantor, P.S. 811 First Avenue, Suite 3 40 Seattle, WA 98104

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - TAC 1623 East J Street, Ste. 2 Tacoma, WA 98421

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: PEREZ, LUIS

A 200-687-958

Date of this notice: 10/3/2013

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

DOYUUL Ca.AAJ
Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure Panel Members: Miller, Neil P.

schuckec Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Luis Perez, A200 687 958 (BIA Oct. 3, 2013)

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

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church. Virginia 20530

PEREZ, LUIS A200-687-958 NWDC 1623 E. J STREET, SUITE 5 TACOMA, WA 98421

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - TAC 1623 East J Street, Ste. 2 Tacoma, WA 98421

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: PEREZ, LUIS

A 200-687-958

Date of this notice: 10/3/2013

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. § 1292.5(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,

DOrutL ct1/&A.}
Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure Panel Members: Miller, Neil P.

schuckec Userteam: Docket

Cite as: Luis Perez, A200 687 958 (BIA Oct. 3, 2013)

..

.

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

Decision of the Board oflmmigration Appeals

File:

A200 687 958 - Tacoma, WA

Date:

OCT� .a 2013
'T

In re: LUIS PEREZ IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS MOTION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: APPLICATION: Reconsideration Henry Cruz, Esquire

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

This case was last before the Board on July 9, 2013, when we dismissed the respondent's appeal of the Immigration Judge's denial of the respondent's application for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255, and the respondent's request to terminate the proceedings. The respondent has filed a timely motion to reconsider our decision. 8 C.F.R. § 100 3.2(b). The Department of Homeland Security has not responded to the motion, which will be denied.

shall be supported by pertinent authority." 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b); see also Matter of 0-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2006). The respondent has cited no legal authority that convinces us of an error in our decision or the Immigration Judge's decision below. The respondent reiterates many of the arguments in his appellate brief. We considered these arguments and found them unpersuasive before dismissing the respondent's appeal.

A motion to reconsider shall specify "errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and

See Matter of 0-S-G-, supra, at 58

(stating that "a motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the Notwithstanding the respondent's allegations, we same brief presented on appeal ...."). considered all of the favorable factors supporting the respondent's adjustment of status application. But given the significant adverse considerations, the respondent did not adequately show that a favorable exercise of discretion was warranted. Further, the respondent - relying on

Garcia

v.

Holder,

659 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 2011)­

reiterates his claim that he was no longer removable and his proceedings should have been terminated when his Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) petition was granted. But

Garcia v. Holder, supra,

does not address inadmissibility for purposes of removal proceedings. Rather, that decision holds that the approval of an SIJ petition falls within the broad framework of "having been admitted in any status" for purposes of an inadmissible alien establishing the 7-year continuous physical presence requirement for cancellation of removal under section 240A(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). As we explained in our decision, an immigrant who adjusting status under section 245(a) of the Act.
v.

has been granted status is considered to have been paroled into the United States for purposes of

section 245(h), nor Garcia of removal proceedings.

Holder, supra, altered

See Section 245(h)(l )

of the Act. But neither

the respondent's admissibility for purposes

Cite as: Luis Perez, A200 687 958 (BIA Oct. 3, 2013)

A200 687 958

Thus, while the respondent may disagree with our decision, he has presented no argwnents that convince us of
a

legal or factual error, or

an

appellate argument that we overlooked.

Accordingly, the motion will be denied.

ORDER:

The motion is denied.

FORTHE0ARD

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

2

Cite as: Luis Perez, A200 687 958 (BIA Oct. 3, 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)//-->