U.S.

Department of Justice
.•

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office of the Clerk
5 /07 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 20530

Schwartz, Brittan, Esq. Rios & Cruz, P.S. 811 1st Ave Suite# 340 Seattle, WA 98104

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104

SEA

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: BARRERA-CEJA, MARGARITA

A 200-827-191

Date of this notice: 2/5/2014

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

DoYUtL ct1AAJ
Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure Panel Members: Kendall-Clark, Molly

Lulseges Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Margarita Barrera-Ceja, A200 827 191 (BIA Feb. 5, 2014)

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

Decision ofthe Board of Immigration Appeals

File:

A200 827 191 - Seattle, Washington

Date:

ffB

-

5 2014

In re: MARGARITA BARRERA-CEJA
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

MOTION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Brittan Schwartz, Esquire

APPLICATION: Reopening ORDER: The proceedings in this matter were last before the Board on March 1, 2013. On

October 5, 2013, the respondent filed the motion to reopen now before the Board alleging ineffective assistance of prior counsel. The respondent has complied, in part, with the process requisite to asserting such a claim. See generally Matter of Compean, Bangaly & J-E-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 1 (A.G. 2009); Matter of Lozada, 19 l&N Dec. 637, 639-640 (BIA 1988). The respondent has provided former counsel with a detailed letter detailing the claimed ineffective assistance. Former counsel has replied and has acknowledged deficiencies in his representation of the respondent. Copies of the letters have been submitted with the motion. The Department of Homeland Security has not responded to the motion. The respondent's detailed affidavit, which we accept as true for purposes of this motion
(see Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 994 (9th Cir. 2010)), states that former counsel failed to

properly present a request for voluntary departure on the respondent's behalf and failed to seek administrative closure pursuant to Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), issued during the pendency of the respondent's proceedings. Given the circumstances detailed in the respondent's letter to former counsel, submitted in support of the motion, we find that an adequate showing of due diligence has been made, that equitable tolling is appropriate and that reopening should be granted. See Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2011). On remand, the respondent shall have the opportunity to apply for any relief for which she may be eligible. Accordingly, the respondent's motion to reopen is granted and the record is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Cite as: Margarita Barrera-Ceja, A200 827 191 (BIA Feb. 5, 2014)

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful