P. 1
Teresa Flores Razo, A092 326 584 (BIA Jan. 31, 2014)

Teresa Flores Razo, A092 326 584 (BIA Jan. 31, 2014)

|Views: 212|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reopened proceedings and remanded the record for further fact-finding relating to the respondent’s removability in light of a minute order from the trial court striking the term “embezzlement” and a reference to the respondent’s employer from the criminal indictment. The Board stated that the Department of Homeland Security bore the burden on remand of showing that the trial court amended the indictment solely so the respondent could avoid immigration consequences, citing Nath v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 1185, 1188-89 (9th Cir. 2006). The decision was written by Member John Guendelsberger.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reopened proceedings and remanded the record for further fact-finding relating to the respondent’s removability in light of a minute order from the trial court striking the term “embezzlement” and a reference to the respondent’s employer from the criminal indictment. The Board stated that the Department of Homeland Security bore the burden on remand of showing that the trial court amended the indictment solely so the respondent could avoid immigration consequences, citing Nath v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 1185, 1188-89 (9th Cir. 2006). The decision was written by Member John Guendelsberger.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on Feb 09, 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

03/21/2014

pdf

text

original

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

Varzandeh, Houman Varzandeh Anderson LLP 3435 Wilshire Boulevard # 1010 Los Angeles, CA 90010

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - LOS 606 S. Olive Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: FLORES RAZO, TERESA

A 092-326-584

Date of this notice: 1/31/2014

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

borutL cl1/VL)
Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure Panel Members: Guendelsberger, John

schwarzA

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Teresa Flores Razo, A092 326 584 (BIA Jan. 31, 2014)

· .

U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review Falls Church, Virginia 20530

..

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

File:

A092 326 584 - Los Angeles, CA

Date:

In re: TERESA FLORES RAZO IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS MOTION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: APPLICATION: Reopening Houman Varzandeh, Esquire

JAN 31 20i°4

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

December 3, 2013, decision dismissing her appeal. The record will be remanded.

On December 19, 2013, the respondent filed a "'motion to reconsider" the Board's

Although entitled otherwise, the respondent's motion is more accurately characterized as one seeking reopening as she Section 240(c)(7)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); wishes to introduce evidence for the Board's consideration.

of Cerna, 20 l&N Dec. 399

Matter

copy of a minute order from a state court reflecting that it granted her motion to strike "by

(BIA 1991); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). Specifically, she has submitted a

embezzlement" and "while said defendant was an agent, servant and employee of South Bay Urology" language in the complaint on September 26, 2013. She contends that she is, therefore, not removable as charged. In dismissing the appeal, the Board essentially noted that the term "embezzlement" was

defined to include a fraudulent act, while Cal. Penal Code § 484(a), defining the term �'theft," is a divisible statute. Given this evidence, we find that further fact-finding is necessary. The record is not clear as to why the California criminal .qourt granted the respondent's motion to strike the noted language. On remand the burden wilf be on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to show that the criminal court granted the respondent's motion solely so he could avoid immigration consequences.

See Nath v. Gonzales,
at issue to

the OHS does not meet its burden, further examination of the conviction records will be the respondent's conviction determine § if he is still removable under

467 F.3d 1185, 1188-89 (9th Cir. 2006).

If

necessary. On remand the Immigration Judge should apply the modified categorical approach to of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), in conjunction with

section 237(a)(2){A)(iii)

section 10l(a)(43)(M)(i) of the Act, 8U.S.C.§l101(a)(43)(M)(i), for an offense involving fraud evidence on this issue. or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000.

Both parties may submit

Accordingly, the following orders will be entered. ORDER: The respondent1s motion to reopen is granted.

Cite as: Teresa Flores Razo, A092 326 584 (BIA Jan. 31, 2014)

.'! •

. ..

.�092 326 584

proceedings not inconsistent with the foregoing opinion, and for the entry of a new decision.

FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

2

Cite as: Teresa Flores Razo, A092 326 584 (BIA Jan. 31, 2014)

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)//-->