Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office ofthe Clerk
5107 l.eesburg Pike. S11ite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 12041

Arditti, David Salazar Ardittl & Whitaker PC 8100 John W. Carpenter Frwy suite 201 Dallas, TX 75247

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel DAL 125 E. John Carpenter Fwy, Ste. 500 Irving, TX 75062-2324

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net


A 200-762-041

Date of this notice: 8/8/2013

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

DOYuu- ct1IVL)
Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure Panel Members: Guendelsberger, John

williame Userteam: Docket

Cite as: Antonio Roa-Carranza, A200 762 041 (BIA Aug. 8, 2013)

l1.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review,
Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Decision of the Board oflrnmigration Appeals


A200 762 041 - Dallas, TX


AUG 0 8 2013

In re: ANTONIO ROA-CARRANZA IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS MOTION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: APPLICATION: Reopening ORDER: The respondent filed a timely "motion for reconsideration" of the Board's May 14, 2013, decision dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge's denial of a continuance. The motion is granted. Although entitled otherwise, the respondent's motion is more accurately characterized as one seeking reopening as he does not contend the Board committed legal or factual error, but instead seeks to introduce new evidence for the Board's consideration. Matter David Arditti, Esquire

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

of 0-S-G-,

24 l&N Dec.

56 (BIA 2006); Matter of Cerna, 20 l&N Dec. 399 (BIA 1991); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(b), (c). We also note that the motion is largely duplicative of the respondent's brief on appeal. A motion to reconsider is not, however, an opportunity to reiterate or expand upon arguments that have been previously raised and addressed on appeal. Matter ofO-S-G-, supra at 58; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b). Specifically, with his motion the respondent has submitted a birth certificate identifying him as the father of a girl born to his wife on April 3, 2013. The evidence regarding the respondent's identification as the father of his wife's newborn daughter is potentially significant evidence with respect to demonstrating the bona fides of their relationship. As the Board's fact-finding authority is limited on appeal, we find it appropriate to remand the record to the Immigration Judge for consideration of this evidence along with other relevant evidence in determining whether a further continuance is warranted. Accordingly, the respondent's motion to reopen is granted, and the record is remanded for further proceedings.

Cite as: Antonio Roa-Carranza, A200 762 041 (BIA Aug. 8, 2013)

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful