P. 1
Trisarana Suvarnasara, A089 183 715 (BIA Jan. 14, 2014)

Trisarana Suvarnasara, A089 183 715 (BIA Jan. 14, 2014)

|Views: 347|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) granted a motion to remand upon finding the respondents submitted sufficient evidence on appeal to warrant consideration of their applications for adjustment of status. The decision was written by Member Edward Grant.
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) granted a motion to remand upon finding the respondents submitted sufficient evidence on appeal to warrant consideration of their applications for adjustment of status. The decision was written by Member Edward Grant.

More info:

Categories:Types, Legal forms
Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on Jan 24, 2014
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

02/25/2014

pdf

text

original

Davis, Garr L.

, Esq
DAVIS & ASSOCIATES
P.O. Box 810684
Dallas, TX 75381
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Ofce of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike. Suite 2000
Fals Church, Vrginia 20530
OHS
/
ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel - DAL
125 E. John Carpenter Fw, Ste. 500
Irving, TX 75062-2324
Name: SUVARNASARA, TRISARANA
Riders:089-183-716
A 089-183-715
Date of this notice: 1
/
14/
2014
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Grant, Edward R.
Sincerely,
DO t O 
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
schwarzA
Userteam: Docket
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished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: Trisarana Suvarnasara, A089 183 715 (BIA Jan. 14, 2014)
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Offce fr Imgration Review
Decision of the Board of Imgraton Appeals
Falls Church Virginia 20530
Files: A089 183 715 -Dallas, TX
A089 183 716
I re: TRISANA SU AASARA
SIU A CHAISUW A SUW ANNASOR
I RMOVAL PROCEEDIGS
APEAL AD MOTION
Date:
ON BEHALF OF RESPONENTS: Gary L. Davis, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS:
CHARGE:
Margaret M. Price
Assistant Chief Counsel
JÀN 142014
Notice: Sec. 237(a)(l)(B), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. § 1227(a){l)(B)]
I the United States in violation of law
APLICATION: Continuace; adjustment of status; remand
The respondents have appealed the Immigration Judge's decision dated Jauary 20, 2012,
denyng the respondents' request fr a continuance. On November 2, 2012, the respondents fled
a motion to remand. The Deparment of Homeland Security fled a motion fr su ay
afrance of the Immigration Judge's decision, but has not fled a response to the motion. The
motion will be ganted.
On appeal, the respondents contend that the Immigation Judge ered by denying the request
fr a continuance to either seek new counsel or explore other relief fom removal that may be
available to them. The respondents state that they are eligible fr adjustment of status based on
section 245(i) of the Act, but they were not able to articulate this relief to the Immigration Judge
because the request fr a continuance to seek n�w counsel wa denied.
The I igration Judge noted that the respondents' case had been on the court's docket fr a
lengthy period of time, the lead respondent's appeal of the denied I-140 petition had been
dismissed, the respondents requested that their frer attorey of record withdraw fom
representation at the hearng on Jauay 18, 2012, ad they did not submit ay applications fr
relief. We fnd tat the Immigation Judge's decision to proceed with the hearing on Jauary 18,
2012, wa appropriate under the circumstances. The regulations provide that a Imigration
Judge has the discretion to gant a request fr continuace where good cause is shown. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. The Im igration Judge was within his bounds to deny the respondents'
request fr a continuance.
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: Trisarana Suvarnasara, A089 183 715 (BIA Jan. 14, 2014)
A089 183 715 et al.
I the motion to remad, te respondents contend tey ae now eligible to adjust status as te
fmale respondent is te benefciary of an apprved employment-based second prefrence
immigation petition fr alien worker, ad tat visas ae currently available in that category. Te
respondents also indicate tat they are eligible to fle fr adjustent of status under section 245(i)
of the Act, because it is gadftered under the lead respondent's labor certifcation application
fled prior to April 30, 2001. They assert tat the lead respondent will be eligble fr adjustment
of status as a derivative. The respondents have submitted nuerous documents wit the motion
to remad, including a copy of the approval notice; a U.S. Departent of State Visa Bulletin fr
November 2012, indicating that the fmale respondent's priorty date is curent; receipt notice
dated April 30, 2001, regading the lead respondent's application fr alien employment
certifcation; and applications fr adjustent of status (Respondents' Exhs. B, C, G, H). We fnd
tat te respondents have submitted suffcient evidence to war at a remad of ths matter to the
Immigration Court fr a deterination of the respondents' eligibility fr adjustment of status.
ORER: The motion to remand is granted.
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: Trisarana Suvarnasara, A089 183 715 (BIA Jan. 14, 2014)

¯²· ¹' ·
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JSTICE
EXECUTIV OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION REVIEW
DALLAS IMMIGRATION COURT
Date: January 20, 2012.
File: A089-183-715 (Lead Respondent) and A089-183-716 (Co-Respondent).
In Removal Proceedings in the Matter of: Trisarana Suvarnasara , Lead Respondent and
Sirikunya C. Suwannasorn, Co-Respondent.
Charge: Section 237(a)(Ol)(B), IA.
Application: None.
On behalf of the Respondent: Pro Se.
Department of Homeland Security: Margaret Price, Assistant Chief Counsel, Offce of the
Chief Counsel, 125 East Carpenter Freeway, Suite 500, Irving, Texas 75062.
WRITTEN DECISION AN ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JDGE
and
ORER OF RMOVAL
I. Procedural Histor.
The Lead Respondent is a male native and citizen of Thailand. The Co-Respondent is a
fmale native and citizen of Thailand, who is the Lead Respondent's wif. On August 2
4
, 2009,
the Deparment of Homeland Security charged both Respondents with being subject to removal
fom the United States. (Exhibit 1). During the course of the proceedings, te Respondents
entered pleas a fllows.
A. Trsarana Suvarasara.
|¹)
The Lead Respondent admitted that he is not a citizen or national of the United States;
(2) The Lead Respondent admited that he is a native and citizen of Thailand;
'-1
The Lead Respondent admited that he was admitted to the United States at Los Angeles,
Califria, on or about November 14, 2000, as a nonimmigrant B2 tempor�_ visitor f_r �_ ___
¯�]kãsTpwith aut- ofzation f remr int n Unitedsates foramporar period not to
exceed May 13, 2001; and
(4)
The Lead Respondent admitted that he remained in the United States beyond May IJ,2001,
without authorization fom the Immigration and NaturaJization Service or its successor, the
Deparment of Homeland Securty.
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
Suvaasara, A089-183-716
Charge: The Lead Respondent conceded that he is subject to removal pursuant to Section
237(a){l)(B), IA, as amended, in that afer admission as a nonimmigrant under Section
IO l (a)(l 5), INA, he remained in the United States fr a time longer than penitted, in violation
of this Act, or any other law of the United States.
Sustainng of the Chage: Pursuant to the Lead Respondent's pleas, this Cour sustained the
Respondent's pleas, fnding that the Respondent is subject to removal fom the United States.
B. Siriknya C. Suwanasom.
Allegations
[I) Te Co-Respondent admitted that she is not a citizen or national of the United States;
(2) Te Co-Respondent admitted that she is a native and citizen of Thailand;
(3) The Co-Respondent admitted that she was admited to the Unted States at Los Angeles,
Califria, on or about November 14, 2000,. As a nonimmigrant A3 personal employee of a
Al or A2;
(
4
)
Te Co-Respondent admited that she was granted an extension of stay, with authorization to
remain in the United States fr a temporary period not to exceed February 26, 2004; ad,
(5) The Co-Respondent admitted that she remained in the United States beyond the Februay 26,
2004, without authorization fom te Imigration ad Natralization Service or its successor
the Department of Homeland Security.
Charge: Te Co-Respondent conceded tat she was subject to removal fom the United States
pursuat to Section 237(a)(l)(B), INA, as amended, in that afer admission as a nonimmigrant
under Section 101(a)(l5) of the Act, she remained in the United States fr a time longer than
permitted, in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States.
Sustaining of the Charge: Pursuant to the Respondent's pleas, this Cour sustained the allegations
and charge of remova, fnding that the Respondent is subject to removal fom the United States.
Aplication: The Respondents did not present an application(s) fr relief at the Individual
Hearing of Januay 18, 2012. The Respondents did request a continuance, which is not a frm of
relief.
LAW: ELIGIBILITY FOR RLIEF
¬=~¬¬ ¬ª*Þ *Þ*°¯ ª'*°-- -·····-·· ·--��----------·-·-�-�-- - -
The Respondents have conceded that they are subject to removal. Accordingly, it is their
burden to eligibility fr relief fom removal. See section 240(c)(4)(A), IA, 8 U.S.C., section
1229a(c)(4)(A); 8 C.F.R., section 1240.8(d)
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
Suvaasara, A089¯ l 83-716
III. EXIBITS
Exhibit 1: Notice to Appear, dtd August 24, 2009, issued to the Lead Respondent.
Exhibit IA: Notice to Appear, dtd August 24, 2009, issued to the Co-Respondent.
Exibit 2: Respondents' Motion to Change Venue.
Exhibit 3: USCIS Notice of Decision, dtd April 29, 2009.
Exhibit 4: Decision of USCIS Administrative Appeals Ofce, dtd June 29, 2011.
IV. FACTUAL & LEGAL ANALYSIS
The Respondents were frst served with a Notice to Appear on August 24, 2009. The
Respondent frst appeared in the Arlington, VA, Immigration Court on March 11, 2010, where
tey were advised of their rigt to an attorey and their cases were continued to allow them time
to retain the services of a attorey. On November 16, 2010, the Dallas Immigration Cour
received a Notice of Entry of Appearance as Atorey Befre te Immigration Cour (Form EOIR
28) refecting that the Respondents had retained Yong L. Wood as their attorey. Also on
November 16, 2010, the Dallas Immigration Cour received a Motion to Change Venue that had
been made to the Arlington Immigration Court, refecting that te Respondents sought to have
their cases moved to te Dallas Immigation Court. (Exhibit 2). On November 11, 2010, the
Respondents' Motion to Change Venue was granted, and their cases were transfrred to the Dallas
Immigration Court. On May 31, 2011, the Respondent appead befre the Dallas Immigration
Cour. On that date this Immigration Judge continued the Respondents' cases until January 18
2012, to allow time fr a determination to be made in regad to te Respondents' appeal of a
denied Immigrant Petition fr an Alien Worker (F01m I-140). (Exhibit 3). On June 29, 2011,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services dismissed the appeal of te denial of the Immigrat
Petition fr a Alien Worker. In dismissing the Respondents' appeal, the USCIS provided, in
pa, that in weighing the totality of the circumstances in the Respondents' case, the evidence
submitted did not establish that the petitioner had the continuing ability to pay the profered wage
beginning on the priorty date.
On January 18, 2012, the Respondents appeared once again befre the Dallas Immigration
Court. At that Individual Hearing, which was scheduled seven months befre, the Respondents'
Attorey fr the frst time moved the Cour to grant his request to withdraw as the Respondents'
attorey. The Respondents provided that it was their desire fr Attorey Wood to withdraw as
their attorey. This Court granted the motion to withdraw as attorey. The Respondents also
requested yet another continuance inorder to gather more evidence in regard to the denied
Immigrant Petition fr an Alien Worker, the appeal of which was dismissed by USCIS six months
_� _@_Jyfre Iu=Jwd¤gmJm b,I7bnUoundwdt-R er-ret-o---
a continuace. In denying the Respondents request fr a continuance this Court noted that the
DHS opposed any frther continuances in this case.
3
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
Suvaasara, A089-l 83-716
In denying the Respondents' request fr yet another continuance this Court considered that
the Respondents had been in proceedings fr a lengthy period of time, having been sered with a
Notice to Appear on August 24, 2009 - nearly two and one half years prior to the hearing of
Jaua 18, 2012. Fuer, the Respondents had the services of an attorey fom November 10,
2010 util the date of their hearing on Janua 18, 2012, at which time they provided that they no
longer desired the services of their attorney. The Court also considered that the appeal of the
denied Immigrant Petition fr an Alien Worker (Form I-140) which was dismissed on June 29,
2011, nearly seven months befre the hearing of January 18, 2012. Yet, the Respondents waited
until te hearing of January 18, 2012, to request another continuance to obtain more evidence.
This Court notes that a continuance is not a fr of relief fom removal. Furher, the
Respondents provided that they had no other relief available to ofer the Cour. The Respondent
fther provided tat they did not desire Voluntar Departure, but rather would appeal any order
of removal if te Court issued such an order.
The Respondents have been in proceedings fr over two years, one Immigrant Petition fr
an Alien Worker submited in their behalf was denied, the appeal of tat denial was dismissed, the
Respondents appeaed at te Individual Heaing with no application fr relief and sought yet
aother continuance in their case. This Cour denied the Respondents' request fr a continuance,
which is not a mmof relief. It is the fnding of this Cour that due process has been affrded te
Respondents. It is the fher fnding of this Cour that the Respondents have failed to meet their
burden of presenting relief to this Immigration Com1. Once again, a continuance is not a fr of
relief. As the Respondents have stated that they do not seek Voluntar Departure, Section 240B,
IA, this Court will order the Respondents removal fom the United States.
V. ORDERS
The below Orders ae issued to both Respondents, Trisarana Suvamasara, A089-I 83-715,
and Sirikunya C. Suwannasom, A089-183-716. As previously provided the Respondents did not
provide an application(s) fr relief to this Court, as it is the Respondents' burden to meet.
Further, the Respondents did not seek Voluntar Deparure, Section 240B, IA. Accordingly,
under the fcts ad the totality of the circumstances of this case, the fllowing Orders are issued:
IT IS ORDERD, that the Respondents be and are DENIED the privilege of Voluntary
Depare, Section 240B, IA. The Respondents did not seek Voluntary Departure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Respondents be and are REMOVED fom the United
States to the countr designated in the record fr that purose, that being: THAILAND.
4
-¬· -�¬¬· -^*~ -¬  
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
Suvarasara, A089-183-716
Advisement to the Respondent: An order of removal has been entered aganst you. I you fail to
appear pursuat to a fnal order of removal at the time and place ordered by the Goverent, oter
than because of exceptional circumstaces beyond your control, you will not be eligible fr VD,
cancellatin or removal, and any chage of adjustment of status fr 10 years fom the date you ae
scheduled to appear.
Appeal Rights: This appeal is fnal unless an appeal is fled with the Board of Immigration
Appeals within 30 calenda days of the date of the mailing o!this written decision.
Date: Januar 20, 2012.
Copy to Chìc!Counsel, DHS/ICE.
5
u
Immigration Judge
DOJ/OIR
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)//-->