You are on page 1of 3
 
Andrew Knapp, Esquire
US Department of Justice
Executve Ofce r Immigraton Reew
Board of Imigration Appeals Oce of the Clerk
5107 Lebg Pike Ste 00 Fals Church, Vgna 2030
Immigrant Access to Justice Assistance 1301W.2nd St #100 DHS/CS-Caiornia Serv. Ctr/CSC 24000 Aila Rd, i Vll/RU aguna Niguel, CA 92677 Los Angeles, CA 9006 Name: ALADO CRTEZ, VICOR
H ... A
070-81-971 Date of this notice 3/10/201
Encosed s a copy of the Board's decson and order n the above-rerenced case. Encosure
Pl Mb: v, T L  h k-Bh h K
Sncerely,
D
c
t
Doa Carr Chef Clerk
ICd : k
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
Cite as: Victor Hugo Alvarado Cortez, A070 781 971 (BIA Mar. 10, 2014)
 
US Depme of sice
Executive Oce r Imigraion Review Deision of the Bord o igran Appel Fals
20530
Fe A7 781 971 Carna Serce Center Date
M.LR  0 214
In re VICTOR HUGO ALVARADO
CORTEZ
Benecay  a sa etn ed b CLAUDIA YVTT TAMAYO etner IN VISA TITION ROCEDIS AAL ON BHALF OF ITIONER Andre Kap squre ON BHALF OF DHS renda Leanhar Asscate Cunse ALICATION etn  cass status  aen reatve r ssuance  mmgrant vsa In a decsn dated Mch 12, 213 the Department  Hmed Securtys ("DHS Caa Serce Ceners Actng Drectr (Drectr deed the pettners sa petn ed n beha  the benecary, her stepther The recrd  prceedngs  be reanded rr  denyng the sa petn, he Drectr ssued a Reques r Inrmatn because athugh the petner submed extense eence  suprt the vadty  the reatnshp beteen herse and her steper ms  the evdence reated t ther reatnshp prr t Deceber 6, 29 hen her mther and stepther dvrced herere, n rder t estabsh tha the reatnsh cntnued, the Drectr requested addtna nrmatn ncudng evdence t sh that the pettner's stepther suppred her nancay such
mney rder recets canceed checks a retus, r medca/nsurance recrds as e as sch recrs r the pettner, crrespndence beteen the pettner d er septher, and adavts m ends my and ther knedgeabe ares In resnse he petner submted evdence, ncudng a staement, phtgraphs aats greetng cards n her dcuments but the Drectr und the evdence nsucen  meet the petners burden  pr. Speccay, the Drectr ntd that he there as eense edence  a septher/chd reatnshp he the benecary as marred t th pettners mther, the ny evdence demnstrang a cnnung reatnsh aer he 29 dvrce as phts and a 212 Ddgers game tcet. On apea, the ettner ctes an unpubshed Bard case r the rpstn that here the reatnshp at ssue nves
adut chd evdence ud generay cme n the r  cards eters, my phts and edence  vsts she asserts tha she rded just ths tye  evdence. Fuhermre she argues that the DHSs cy n adut chd/pent cases rests n  cases beng granted because the chd  n nger resde th the arent makng edence mre dcut t btan As nted by the pettner n apea her bden  pr n sa petn rceedngs requres that she estabsh the reatnsh th her stether by a rendernce  he
Cite as: Victor Hugo Alvarado Cortez, A070 781 971 (BIA Mar. 10, 2014)
 
A070 781 971 evidence.
 Matter of Brantigan
11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). A preponderance of the evidence is less strigent tha other standards used eg. "beyond a reasonable doubt or cle convincig unequivocal d convincing evidence but it does reuire that what the petitioner seeks to establish is probaly tue
 Mater of E-M
20 I&N Dec. 77 79-80 (BIA 1989) (discussing the preponderance of the evidence stadd by comparing it to other standards)The evidence should sho that the ct to be proven is more probable than not
ater of Lemhamad,
20 I&N Dec 316 320 n.5 (BIA 1991) While the petitioner is correct that case law does not require proof of active paenting and continuing nancial suppot by a stepparent in rder to nd a child eligible r a visa petition (Petitioner's Br. at 2 (iting
Paler
v.
Rey
622 F 2d 463 (9th Cir. 1980);
 Matter of Vzcaino
19 I&N Dec 644 648 BIA 1988))) here the evidence ust show that the pentcild relationship more proably than ot contiued since the parents relationship as terminated
see Matter of owrer
17 I&N Dec. 613 615 (BIA 1981) As pointed out by the Director ost of the evidence suitted by the petiioner in suppor of the visa petition docents hr relationship ith e eneciary prior to the eneciar's divorce o the petitioners other. There as evidence that the parties atended a Dodgers gae togeter in 201 and that the beneciary attended the petitiners graduation om college. The Director noted that most of the adavits sumitted by the petitioner docent the time that the petitioer d beneiary resided together prior to the petitioer's parents' divorce. Furtheore the adavits are all very vague ith no specic inormation aout how oen te petitioner and beneciary currently see each other hat activities they underake together and ho they maintain a close relationsip since the divorce.  Nevertheless we nd that a remand is arrated in order to allo the petitioner to sumit additional eidence to sho a continuing relationship th her stepter lloing her parents' divorce The petitioner and beneciar clearly had a relationship and the respondent provided evidence hich specically respoed to the Directors Reuest r Inration. The Directors deial cuses on a lack of evidence hich as not specically addressed
the Request r Inration such as telephone records greeting cds and correspondence Therere it is not clear that the petitioner as give  adequate opportunity to respond to the Directors reasons r denying the visa petitio We ill remand in order to give the petitioner an oppornity to respond to the Directors ding that cerain additional evidence beyond that listed in the rmal euest r Evidence should have bee provided
See
8 C.FR § 1032b)(16)(i) 20)
 Mater of Cuelo
20 I&N Dec 94 9698 (BIA 1989)
atter of Obaigbena
19 I&N Dec 533 537 (BIA 1988) ODER: The record of proceedigs is reanded r rther proceedings consistent ith tis order ad r a e decisio assessig the evidence i suppor of the petitioners visa petition OR THE BARD
2
Cite as: Victor Hugo Alvarado Cortez, A070 781 971 (BIA Mar. 10, 2014)

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505