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

Name: C

-T

, G

I...

-791

Date of this notice: 5/12/2015

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

DCYUtL cQ./v\.)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members:
Holmes, David B.

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index
Cite as: G-I-C-T-, AXXX XXX 791 (BIA May 12, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - HAR

P. 0. Box 230217
Hartford, CT 06123-0217

U.S. Department of Justice

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Executive. Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 20530

File:

791

In re: G

Hartford, CT
C

Date:
-T

APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:
APPLICATION:

Pro se

Continuance

The respondent, a native and citizen of Honduras, appeals from the Immigration Judge's
decision dated April 29, 2014, denying his request for a continuance of proceedings. The record
will be remanded.
The respondent sought a continuance to pursue Special Immigrant Juvenile Status.

In

denying the continuance and ordering the respondent's removal to Honduras, the Immigration
Judge noted that a previous filing with a Connecticut probate court had been withdrawn, and that
nothing else had been filed. On appeal, the respondent has submitted evidence that on May 23,
2014, a probate court case was initiated against the respondent's father in a Connecticut court.
Given this new and previously unavailable evidence, we find that a remand to the Immigration
Judge is appropriate. Accordingly, the following order will be entered.
ORDER:

The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion and for the entry of new decision.

FOR THE BOARD

Cite as: G-I-C-T-, AXXX XXX 791 (BIA May 12, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

File: A

April 29, 2014

-791

In the Matter of:

-T

RESPONDENT

)
)
)
)

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

CHARGE:

Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;

present without having been admitted or paroled.

APPLICATION:

Motion for continuance to file a petition with probate court.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Helen Macelli

International Institute of Connecticut
670 Clinton Avenue
Bridgeport, CT 06605

ON BEHALF OF DHS: Courtney Gates-BGrason

Assistant Chief Counsel

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

The record reflects that the respondent was served with the notice to
appear in October of 2012. The respondent admits the allegation in the notice to
appear-:-that- M.be is a citizen of Honduras:-whols present without having been admitted
or paroled. Accordingly, the court finds that removability has been established by clear
and convincing evidence.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT

The record also reflects that the respondent failed to appear in court on
May 14th of 2013. But these proceedings were subsequently reopened.

Honduras on January 1st of 1998. On the one hand.:. it says that he was going to live
with an uncle named Hector Cordova [phonetic], but then he contacted his father, also
Hector Cordova [phonetic]. It appears that thafs been asorne -confusion in that the
person he was coming to see was his father. He states that the told the Border Patrol
that he was living with his aunt in Honduras. The respondent informed the court that his
mother had died. When was the released from OHS custody, he was released to the
custody of his father. The record also reflects that the father paid for the respondenfs
journey to the United States.
The court also reviewed the motion to reopen. It includes an affidavit from
his#le

father with whom the respondent has been residing since he came to the United

States. He states that it was his error that the respondent did not come to court and
indicated that it was not the respondenfs fault. There's also a letter from his father
indicating that his father requested the day off from work.
The record also reflects that the respondent had a case in the probate
court withdrawn for unknown reasons. There was a hearing on January 4th. The matter
was then continued for today. It was represented to the court that there would be
something filed with the probate court in a few weeks. However, nothing has been filed.
The issue is whether the matter should be continued again in the exercise
of discretion. The court reviewed the factorsmatter set forth in Matter of Hashmi, 24 l&N
Dec. 785 (BIA 2009). OHS is opposed to the motion to continue. There were 9tftef

-791

April 29,

2014

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

The court reviewed the 1-213. It reflects that 1he respondent was born in

questions raised about whether the underlying visa petition is prima facie approvable.
That is unknown.

The court would note that a prior petition was withdrawn. But the

neglected. It appears that the father has paid for the respondent's journey to the United
States, and it appears.:. looking at the motion to reopen -te--eehe is a responsible parent.
...

The court has real doubts about whether the respondent could meet that burden. The
other issue is whether he merits a favorable exercise of discretion andffi other relevant
procedural factors. It appears the respondent was given time to file the petition with the
probate court several months_g_Q-;- and apparently that has not happened. The court
finds that the respondent has been given adequate time after the motion to reopen was
granted.
Considering all the factors in their entirety, the court will deny the motion in
the exercise of discretion.
The respondent has not applied for nor does appear to be eligible for any
other relief from removal including post merits voluntary departure.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the respondent's motion to continue is
denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the respondent be removed to
Honduras.

791

April 2 9,

2014

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

other issue is frankly whether the respondent then has truly been abandoned or

'

,I

Please see the next page for electronic

signature

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

W. STRAUS
Immigration Judge
MICHAEL

A205-722-791

April 29,

2014

.
\

f'

/Isl/
STRAUS

strausrn on September 9,

at 8:50 PM GMT

-791

2014

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Immigration Judge MICHAEL W.

April 29,

2014