P. 1
Kamleshwar Prasad, A099 681 885 (BIA Dec. 13, 2013)

Kamleshwar Prasad, A099 681 885 (BIA Dec. 13, 2013)

|Views: 317|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the denial of the respondent’s motion to reopen upon finding the April 30, 2001, deadline to establish eligibility under Section 245(i) of the INA was not subject to equitable tolling due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The decision was written by Member Anne Greer.
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the denial of the respondent’s motion to reopen upon finding the April 30, 2001, deadline to establish eligibility under Section 245(i) of the INA was not subject to equitable tolling due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The decision was written by Member Anne Greer.

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on Dec 26, 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

01/28/2014

pdf

text

original

Chang, Richard W., Esq.

Wasserman, Mancini &Chang
1915 Ì Street., N.W., Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006-0000
Name: PRASAD, KAMLESHWAR
L.b. Ücgattmcut 0Íå0StÎ0c
Executive Ofce fr Imigration Review
8oaráo( ¡ootgrattoa4ppeals
upceo(|/eclerk
J!J7Lcæ0urgÍí8c, 5ttílcZJJJ
Í0l/t L0urN|, lrgíní0 2JJJJ
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel - WAS
500 12th St., SW, Mail Stop 5902
Washington, DC 20536
A 099-681-885
Date of this notice: 12/13/2013
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case.
Enclosure
|ðDCl MCDDCf5'
L|BB|, PDDBJ.
Sincerely,
DC c f
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
wIllìame
U5CI|CðD. LOCKBl
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Kamleshwar Prasad, A099 681 885 (BIA Dec. 13, 2013)
u:s. Department of Justice
Executive Offce fr Immigation Review
Decision of the Board of Immigation Appeals
Falls Church, Virginia ZÛåJÛ
File: A099 681 885 - Arlington, VA
In re: KAMLESHW P PRSAD
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
APPEAL
Date:
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Richard W. Chang, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS:
CHARGE:
Ada L. Berg
Assistat Chief Counsel
OL| l &2013
Notice: Sec. 237(a)(l)(B), l&N Act [8 U.S.C. §
122
7(a)(l)(B)] -
In the United States in violation of law
APPLICATION: Reopening; reconsideration; adjustent of status
The respondent, a native and citizen of India, appeals the December 23, 2011, denial of a
motion to reopen ad reconsider seeking adjustent of status under section 245(i) of the
Immigation and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). The Immigration Judge held that the
respondent did not demonstate prima facie eligibility fr adjustment of status. The appeal will
be dismissed.
The Board reviews a Immigation Judge's fndings of fct fr clear error.
§ 1003.l(d)(3)(i). We review issues of law, discretion, or judgment de novo.
§ 1003 .1 ( d)(3)(ii).
8 C.F.R.
8 C.F.R.
The respondent asserts that he was admitted to the United States on May 11, 2000, and he
retained Earl S. David, Esquire, on Aprl 5, 2001, to fle an application fr labor cerifcation on
his behalf befre the April 30, 2001, "gradfthering" deadline. See section 245(i)(l )(B)(i) of
the Act. The record shows that the labor cerifcation application was fled on July 13, 2001. On
April 22, 2009, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services denied the respondent's
application fr adjustment of status because he could not demonstrate that a labor cerifcation
had been ÜÌc0 on his behalf on or DcÙtc PQtIÌ 30, 2001. ò88 ld. ¯hc Immigration Ju0gc 0cuIc0
the respondent's renewed application fr adjustent of status on September 29, 2011, ad
ordered his removal. The respondent fled no appeal with the Board. In the motion at issue, the
respondent argued tat the fling deadline of section 245(i)(l)(B)(i) of the Act should be
equitably tolled due to the inefective assistance of N. David.
While the Immigration Judge signed te decision on November 2, 2011, the coversheet
accompanying the decision shows that it was issued on December 23, 2011.
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Kamleshwar Prasad, A099 681 885 (BIA Dec. 13, 2013)
¬ ¥
A099 681 885
The respondent has satisfed te procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada,
19 I&N'Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See also Mater of Compean, Bangaly, and J-E-C-,
25 l&N Dec. 1 (A.G. 2009). P applicant fr reopening must fher demonstrate prima facie
eligibility fr the relief sought. INS V. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 ( 1988).
As noted by the Immigation Judge, the respondent has identifed no legal authority
supporing equitable tolling of the deadline of section 245(i)(l)(B)(i) of the Act. The respondent
relies upon Piranej V. Muksey, 516 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2008), which is not binding in this case
asing within the jurisdiction of the United States Cour of Appeals fr the Fourh Circuit. See
Matter of Anselmo, 20 l&N Dec. 25, 31 (BIA 1989) (explaining tat the Boad historically
fllows a cour's precedent in cases arising in that circuit). In any event, in remanding fr fct­
fnding ad a deterination of whether Piranej had complied with Matter of Lozada, the cou
declined to address whether inefective assistace of counsel could serve as a basis fr equitable
tolling of the April 30, 2001, gradfthering deadline under section 245(i) of the Act. Piranej,
supra, at 145. Another court has answered this question in the negative by afrming the Boad's
holding that the deadline under section 245(i) operates as a statute of repose, and thus is not
subject to equitable tolling. Ba/am-Chuc V. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1044, 1048-50 (9th Cir. 2008).
Similarly, the Fouh Circuit has held that the principles of equitable tolling do not apply to
statutes such as section 245(i)(l)(B)(i) of the Act "where strict satisfction of a time limit may be
required as a precondition to jurisdiction over a matter." Harris V. Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325,
328 (4th Cir. 2000). Therefre, as the respondent has not shown prima facie eligibilit fr
adjustment of status pursuat to section 245(i), we afrm the denial of his motion to reopen and
reconsider.
Accordingly, the fllowing order is entered.
ORER: The appeal is dismissed.
2
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Kamleshwar Prasad, A099 681 885 (BIA Dec. 13, 2013)
|
" :.
1 ¯s
+
UJJbO UJPJbU ObEP8ÃMbN¯ ÒV  UUUÃJLb
bXbLU¯JVb ÕbbJLb bÕK JHMJUH¯JÒN  KbVJbN
JHMJUHÃJÛN  LÕÜKÃ
bÜJ NÕKJH UÃUÆJ¸UÃ.¸ UÃbJ3ÜÜ
P81JNGJÕN¸ VT  222Ü3
NPUUbKH¡ MÆLJNJ ô LHÜ
LHPÜ¡ KJ¯O W.
JbJbJ J Uø N .W. UUJÃb  
NAUHJNGÃUN¸ OL

2

 
 
 
l
\ •
� �
• J
' .
.-·.(
' `
_,.-�
··,¸
�` .· ÜBLG'  OGC  2ó¡ 2ÜJJ
\´ .. ·
´ ·· '
E1JG  A0��-681-885
/
¦
· ¸' q·¸•· ·
'''´ ·ID LDG  MBLLGI  OÏ' 
EKUÅ¡ ¥LbUHNPK
TLLBCDGÕ  lB  B  COQ_  OÏ  LDG  wI1LLGD  OGC1B1OD  OÏ  LDG  J001gIBL1OD  UUOgO. 
¯D1B  OOC1B1OD  1B   Ï�DBJ  UDJGBB  BD  BggGBJ  1B  LBKOD  LOLDG  UOBIÕ  OÏ 
J001gIBC3OD  PggOBJB.  ¯DG  ODCJOBGO COQ1�B  OÏ  bÕKM bÕJK 2b,
NOL1CG  O1  PggOBJ¡  BDÕ  bÕ8M LÒJK  2 ¯¸ NOC1CG  OÏ  LDLI_  BB  T£LOIDG_  OI 
KGgIGBODLBL1VG¡  gIOgGIJ_  G×OCOLOÕ,  0UBL  DG  Ï1JGÖ  w1LD  LDG  UOBIO  OÏ 
1001gIBL1QD  TggO�JB  OD  OI  DGÏOIG 
JDG  BggGBJ  0UBL  DO  BCCO0gBD1GO  D_  gIOOT  OÏ  gB1O  ÏGO  (þJJÜ.ÜÜ) •
�LDCJOBGÕ  1B  B  COg_  OÏ  LDG  OIBJ  dec1e1cn.
LDCJOBGÕ  1B  B  LIBDBCI1gL  OÏ  LDG  LGBL10OD_  OÏ  IGCOIO 
YOU  BIO  gIBDLOÕ  ODL| t
'
·BUD01  L  B  DI1GÏ 
CO  CD1B  -¡:ÍCG  1n B�µ,OIL  OÍ _OUI  g..·.

ÒggOB1Dg  COODB G

J  1B  gIBDLGÕ  ODL1J  LO  BUD01L  B 
DI1GÏ  1D  OggOB1L1OD  LO  LDO  BggGBJ 
�CJOBOO  1B  B  CO__  OÏ  CDG 
<
O1OGI/OGC1B1OD  OÏ  CDO  J001@IBL1OD  UUOgO 
CC' 
PJJ  gBgGIB  Ï11GO  w1LD  LDG  COUIL  BDBJJ  DG  BCCO0gBD1OÕ  D_  gIOOÍ 
OÏ  BOIV1CG  UgOD  Og§OB1Dg  COUDBGJ. 
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t

 

.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVEW
IMMIGRATION COURT
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
IN THE MATTER OF
PRASAD, Kamleshwar
In Removal Proceedings
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No: A ÜÝÝ bö1 ööb
ton to Reopen and Reconsider, it ISMÜÜÀ
L DHS does not oppose the motion.
L The Respondent does not oppose the motion.
¯ F response to the motion has not been fled with the cour.
L Good cause has been established HIthe motion.
L The court agrees wit te reasons stated in the opposition to the motion.
L The motion ¡S untimely per . +
Other: ¹))h�s ,¸: 1wi 1 �eC s.µ t Î º ! Þ .(¸

z} ¯« fÞ
ìU l�ga] ¸
• Ë h 1¤0 ¹¬
Cvff aft
tS C \ &L. :T
~&
Deadlines:
-:)- 'c y p �.•..;� a�·e.· �
l P51 [ � r�1r1v1tl. f.' rrg«·s÷
L The applicatio s) fr relief must be fled by
L The respondent ust comply with DHS biometrics inst Ü ious by �
 ¯
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Tis document was sered by: [ ] Mail [ ] Personal Serice
To: [ ] Alien [ ] FÌ¡0uc/o Custodia Ofcer [ ] Alien's At [] DHS
Date: By: Cour St f
MW
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t

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)//-->