Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office of the Clerk
. 5107 leesburg Pike, Suile 2000 Falls Church. Virginia 20530

Ruchi Thaker, Esquire Law Office of Ruchi Thaker 225 Broadway Suite 3000 New York, NY 10007

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel 2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 500 Kansas City, MO 64108


Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net


A 201-141-550

Date of this notice: 2/10/2014

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

DoYUtL t!t1/lA.)
Domm Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure Panel Members: Holmes, David B.

lucasd Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Collins Anakor, A201 141 550 (BIA Feb. 10, 2014)

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

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

File: A201 141 550-Kansas City, MO


FEB 1 0 2014

re: COLLINS ANAKOR a.k.a. Collins I. Anakor


Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Melissa L. Castillo Assistant Chief Counsel



The respondent moves the Board pursuant to section 240(c)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7), and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 to reopen his removal proceedings to apply for adjustment of status. In our decision dated October 30, 2013, we dismissed his appeal from the Immigration Judge's July 2, 2012, decision which found him ' removable, denied his motion for a continuance, but granted him voluntary departure. We also granted him 60 days voluntary departure. The Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") opposes his motion to reopen. The motion will be granted. The respondent's motion to reopen filed on December 27, 2013, is timely. 1 This is his first motion to reopen. As stated in footnote 1, the bars under section 240B(d) of the Act do not apply. The visa petition filed on his behalf by his U.S. citizen spouse is pending with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (Motion Exh. A). The respondent presents clear and convincing evidence which indicates a strong likelihood that the marriage is bona fide. He presents his U.S. citizen spouse's affidavit, a joint lease agreement, and an explanatory letter from the landlord (Motion Exh. A). In response to the DHS's opposition, he submits his clarifying letter, his brother's letter, a letter from his mother­ in-law, and his spouse's letter (Supplemental Motion Exhs. A, B, C). The respondent and his spouse explain the lack of evidence showing commingling of financial resources by pointing out that he does not have work authorization and she is unemployed. The DHS's opposition is not persuasive in light of the evidence discussed above.

1 Because the respondent filed the motion to reopen prior to the expiration of the 60-day voluntary departure period we granted in our October 30, 2013, decision, the grant of voluntary departure was automat�cally terminated, and the penalties for failure to depart under section 240B(d) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d), shall not apply. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(e)(l).

Cite as: Collins Anakor, A201 141 550 (BIA Feb. 10, 2014)

A201141 550

Further, since the respondent's spouse is a U.S. citizen, an immigrant visa will be immediately available to him if the visa petition is approved, and the bars under section 245(c)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(c)(2), will not apply. Since he was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant, he is eligible to adjust his status under section 245(a) of the Act. Accordingly, the following orders will be entered.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net


The motion to reopen is granted and the proceedings are reopened.

FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision.



Cite as: Collins Anakor, A201 141 550 (BIA Feb. 10, 2014)

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful