P. 1
Lionel Ramos-Chavez, A024 255 707 (BIA Mar. 28, 2014)

Lionel Ramos-Chavez, A024 255 707 (BIA Mar. 28, 2014)

|Views: 354|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) granted the respondent’s motion to remand over the opposition of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in light of the evidence of the filing of a petition for U nonimmigrant status supported by an approved law enforcement certification. The decision was written by Vice Chairman Charles Adkins-Blanch.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) granted the respondent’s motion to remand over the opposition of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in light of the evidence of the filing of a petition for U nonimmigrant status supported by an approved law enforcement certification. The decision was written by Vice Chairman Charles Adkins-Blanch.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index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 Apr 07, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/07/2015

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

Contreras Edin, Gloria Leticia Contreras Edin & Associates, PLLC 546 Rice Street, Suite 200 Saint Paul, MN 55103

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel 2901 Metro Drive, Suite 100 Bloomington, MN 55425

BLM

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: RAMOS-CHAVEZ, LIONEL

A 024-255-707

Date of this notice: 3/28/2014

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

DOWtL cl1/VL)
Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure
Panel Members: Adkins-Blanch, Charles K.

williame Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Lionel Ramos-Chavez, A024 255 707 (BIA Mar. 28, 2014)

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

RAMOS-CHAVEZ, LIONEL A024-255-707 C/O ICE/OHS 13880 Business Center Dr., NW Elk River, MN 22330

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - BLM 2901 Metro Drive, Suite 100 Bloomington, MN 55425

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: RAMOS-CHAVEZ, LIONEL

A 024-255-707

Date of this notice: 3/28/2014

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.S(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,

DoYUtL ct1/Vl.)
Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure
Panel Members: Adkins-Blanch, Charles K.

williame Userteam: Docket

Cite as: Lionel Ramos-Chavez, A024 255 707 (BIA Mar. 28, 2014)

U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office fof Immigr:ation Review Falls Church, Virginia 20530

Decision of the Board oflmmigration Appeals

File:

A024 255 707 - Bloomington, MN

Date:

M.AR 2 8 2014

In re: LIONEL RAMOS-CHAVEZ a.k.a. Alfonso Zuniga-Guzman a.k.a. Gustavo Guzman-Cruz a.k.a. Miguel Gonzalez-Cruz a.k.a. Pedro Valenzuela a.k.a. Leovigildo Gustavo Guzman-Cruz

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL AND MOTION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF OHS: Gloria L. Contreras-Edin, Esquire

Ryan R. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel

APPLICATION:

Continuance; remand

The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, has appealed from the Immigration Judge's December 2, 2013, decision denying his request for a continuance and ordering his removal. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent has also filed a motion to remand. The Department of Homeland Security ("OHS") has filed a brief in opposition. We review findings of fact by the Immigration Judge for clear error, while all other issues are reviewed de nova. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003. l (d)(3)(i)-(ii). The respondent's motion to remand will be granted. The respondent's motion to remand is supported by evidence indicating that he has filed a petition for a U nonimmigrant visa that is supported by an approved law enforcement certification. See generally Matter of Sanchez Sosa, 25 I&N Dec. 807 (BIA 2012). Based on this evidence, we conclude that remand of the record for further consideration of the respondent's request for a continuance to await adjudication of his pending petition for a U visa is warranted.

See

id. (holding that a continuance for a reasonable period of time should

ordinarily be granted where an alien demonstrates prima facie eligibility for a U visa). Accordingly, the respondent's motion to remand will be granted. underlying appeal. ORDER: decision. The record will be remanded for further proceedings and for the entry of a new Because we grant the respondent's motion to remand for further proceedings, we do not reach the merits of the

FOR THE BOARD

Cite as: Lionel Ramos-Chavez, A024 255 707 (BIA Mar. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

File: A024-255-707 In the Matter of

December 2, 2013

) LIONEL RAMOS-CHAVEZ RESPONDENT ) ) ) IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

CHARGES:

Section 237(a)(1)(B) of the Act - remained longer than permitted; Section 237(a)(1)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act failed to maintain non-immigrant status.

APPLICATIONS:

None.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: GLORIA CONTRERAS-EDIN, Esquire Contreras-Edin & Assoc. 546 Rice Street, Suite 200 St. Paul, Minnesota 55130 ON BEHALF OF OHS: RYAN WOOD, Esquire Assistant. Chief Counsel/ICE 2901 Metro Drive, Suite 100 Bloomington, Minnesota 55425

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE The respondent is a 54-year-old unmarried male native and citizen of Mexico who last entered the United States at or near Calexico, California, on or about May 28,

1

2009. At that time, he was admitted as a non-immigrant B 1-82 visitor on his border crossing card with authorization to remain in the United States for a temporary period not to exceed November 27, 2009. The respondent has remained in the United States

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

beyond November 27, 2009, without authorization from the Department of Homeland Security. The Government has commenced removal proceedings by the issuance of a Notice to Appear (hereinafter 11NTA") dated October 15, 2013, charging respondent with being removable based upon the above-captioned sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (hereinafter 11the Acf'). Removability At respondent's removal hearing, the respondent appeared with the above­ referenced counsel and conceded to the service of the NTA (Exhibit 1). The respondent has admitted all the factual allegations and conceded removability based on the charge. Therefore, removability is not at issue in these proceedings. The Court finds that removability has been established by clear and convincing evidence. See Section 240(c)(2) of the Act. The respondent has designated Mexico should removal become necessary. Relief The respondent has not sought any relief in this country. The Court notes that respondent is not eligible for relief. The respondent is not eligible for cancellation of removal pursuant to Section 240A(b) of the Act because he does not have the requisite ten years' residence or the family ties to be eligible for that form of relief. The respondent has no claim to adjustment of status pursuant to Section 245 of the Act. Respondent stated that no petitions have been filed on his behalf that would

A024-255-707

2

December 2, 2013

allow him to adjust status. The respondent has indicated that he is not seeking voluntary departure pursuant to Section 240B(a) of the Act.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

The Court did inquire as to whether or not the respondent had any claim to citizenship, either in his own rights or through his parents. Respondent has never been a lawful permanent resident of the United States, so he does not derive citizenship in his own right. The Court inquired into the status of his parents to determine if he derived citizenship through them, but respondent indicated to the Court that his parents were born in Mexico, live in Mexico and are citizens of Mexico, as were his grandparents, so he does not derive citizenship as to his family. The Court also inquired into whether the respondent had any fears of persecution or torture if he returned back to Mexico. Respondent indicated that he only had generalized fears of returning to Mexico and that they did not rise to the level necessary to make a request for asylum, withholding or relief under the Torture Convention. The respondent has sought a continuance to allow him to apply for a U-visa. The Court has denied that request because, as of this time, the certification has not been granted, although the Court notes in the respondent's motion for a continuance that the Department of Labor is looking into this matter and may be the certifying agency for the U-visa. The Immigration Court lacks jurisdiction over the respondent's application for a U-visa. The regulations that pertain to U-visas provide that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (hereinafter "USCIS") has "sole jurisdiction over all petitions for U non-immigrant status." 8 C.F.R. Section 214.14(c)(1). The regulations further provide that respondents who are denied U-visas may appeal only to the Administrative Appeals Office of CIS rather than the Immigration Court. 8 C.F.R.

A024-255-707

3

December 2, 2013

�.

Section 214.14(c)(5)(ii). The regulations do allow a respondent who is the subject of a final order of removal to file a petition for U non-immigrant status with USCIS, but explicitly provides that the "filing of a petition for U-1 non-immigrant status has no effect

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

on ICE's authority to execute a final order, although the alien may request a stay of removal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Section 241.6(a) and 8 C.F.R. Section 1214.6(a)." 8 C.F.R. Section 214.14(c)(1)(ii}. Considering these controlling regulations, the respondent's motion for a continuance is denied. The respondent should address any further requests for a stay to USCIS. And lastly, the Court points to the Board decision in Matter of Gabryelski, 20 l &N Dec . 750 (BIA 1993), which cautions Immigration Courts to grant continuances for post­ conviction relief. The same would hold true for people seeking relief from other agencies as well. Therefore, there being no other relief available to the respondent, the following orders shall be entered:

Please see the next page for electronic signature
WILLIAM J. NICKERSON, JR. Immigration Judge

A024-255-707

4

December 2, 2013

/Is//
Immigration Judge WILLIAM J. nickersw on January 30, NICKERSON, JR.

2014 at 11:39 PM GMT

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

A024-255-707

5

December 2, 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)//-->