Giannetta, Pasquale F., Esq.

Attorney at Law
466 Bloomfield Ave., Suite 200
Newark, NJ 07107
Name: CARMELA FLORES, MARIA
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Ofce of the Clerk
5107 leesburg Pike. Suite 2000
Fall s Church. Vrginia 20530
OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - NYC
26 Federal Plaza, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10278
A 205-136-055
Date of this notice: 6/19/2014
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Adkins-Blanch, Charles K.
Manuel, Elise
Guendelsberger, John
Sincerely,
|o ´ t
Donna Car
Chief Clerk
schw�irzA
Useream: Docket
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Maria Carmela Flores, A205 136 055 (BIA June 19, 2014)
I
'
U.S. Depaent of Justice
Exe O c for Imgton Rew
Dson o t Bd o Imgon A 
FalCu Via 20530
File: A205 136 055 - Ne York N Date:
JUN 19
2014
I re: MA CA .A FORS a.k.a. M Caela Aas Flore
I RMOVAL PROCEEDIGS
APPEAL
ON BEHAF OF RSPONENT: Pasuale F. Ganet Esuie
APLICATION: Reopening
The respondent, a native and citien of El Salvador, was ordeed removed in absena on
Ocobe 19, 2012. On November 20, 2012, the respondent fled a moton to repe proc dins,
which the Imigaton Judge dee on Jaua 11, 2013. The respondent fled a timely appeal
of t decision. Te appeal will be sustne, proceedings will be reopened and the rord wll
be remanded.
The Immigaton Judge denied the respondent's motion to repe fnding tat she fale t
eslish ection circsacs for her falure to appe at the hearing. Howeer, upon
review, we fnd t the toti of circumstaces presnte in this cse constitte exceptonal
crcmsace fr the respondent's falue to apper a he hering. Section 240(e)(l) of the Ac;
8 U.S.C. § 1229(e)(l). The respondent's failure to appea was inadveent ad the result of a
good faith misae aising fom the loss of he heing notce durin a move and misinforaton
fom her cousel's ofce rather ta a atempt t avoid a heain. See, e.g., Singh v. IS, 295
F.3d 1037 (9t Ci. 2002)( the Cour fud exceptiona circumstaes were present were the
alien msunderstood te heng time ad could have presented a valid clam fr relief fom
deporaon). Acordingly, we will allow the respondent aother oppornity to appear fr a
heng.
ORER: The appeal is susained, the i absenta order is rescinded, the proceedings are
reopened, ad the recrd is remande to the Immigaton Judge fr fher proceeings.
FOR T BOA
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Maria Carmela Flores, A205 136 055 (BIA June 19, 2014)
I t
t. J..� -·
• r
In the Matter of:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMMIGRTION COURT
26 FEDERAL PLZ 12TH FL.,RM1237
NEW YORK, NY 10278
case No.: A205-136-055
CAMELA FLORES, MARIA
Docket: NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
RESPONDENT
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUGE
Upon consideration of RESPONENT
Motion to Reconsider an Immigration Judge's decision

Motion to Reopen proceedings
filed in the above entitled matter, it
Be Granted
(�
Be Denied for reasons indicated
Appeal: NO APPEAL (A/I/B)
Appeal Due By:
is hereby ordered that
in the attached decision
CERTIFICAT OF SERVICE
the motion
THIS DOCUMENT WAS SERVD BY: MAIL ) PERSONAL SE�ICE (P)
 
TO: [ ] A  I

l ALIEN c/o Custodial Offic� Alien's ATT/REP 1. DHS
DATE: J  cJ BY: COURT STAFF �
' .\
Attachments: [ ] EOIR-33 [ ] EOIR-28 [ ] Legal Services List [ ] Other
Form EOIR 2 - 2T
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
CAELA-FLORES, Maria (A205-136-055)
On November 20, 2012, the respondent, through counsel, fled a motion to reopen the
above-captioned proceedings wherein she was ordered removed in absentia on October 19, 2012.
In support of the motion, the respondent's attorey alleges that the respondent missed the
October 19, 2012 hearing because she misplaced her hearing notice "because she moved to
another address." Furthermore, she called her attorey's ofce to inquire about the date of her
upcoming hearing, and a member of the attorey's staf incorrectly infrmed the respondent that
her next hearing date was October 29, 2012. When the respondent realized that her hearing was
scheduled fr October 19, 2012, and not October 29, 2012, "it was too late." The Court notes
that the motion to reopen only contains an affrmation by the respondent's attorey, and does not
include the respondent's afdavit, nor does it include an afdavit fom the member of the
attorney's staf who incorrectly infrmed the respondent that her hearing was scheduled fr
October 29, 2012. Attorney afrmations are not evidence. However, fr purposes of
adjudicating this motion the Court will treat the attorey afrmations in the current motion as
evidence.
An order entered in absentia in removal proceedings may be rescinded only (i) upon a
motion to reopen fled within 180 days after the date of the order of removal if the alien
demonstrates that his filure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances, or (ii) upon a
motion to reopen fled at any time if he demonstrates that he did not receive due notice or that he
was in fderal or state custody and his filure to appear was through no fult of his own. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). The filure to appear because of"exceptional circumstances" refrs to
circumstances beyond the control of the alien, such as batter or extreme cruelty to the alien or to
the alien's parent or child, serious illness of the alien, and serious illness or death of a
immediate relative, but not including less compelling circumstaces. INA § 240(e)(l ).
The record refects that on March 30, 2012 the respondent was personally notifed of her
October 19, 2012 hearing date. Specifcally, a recording of the respondent's March 30, 2012
hearing establishes that, on this date, the respondent was advised, through a Spanish interpreter,
that October 19, 2012 is her next hearing date. Moreover, on March 30, 2012 a hearing notice
containing the October 19, 2012 hearing date was handed to the respondent by the undersigned
Immigration Judge. See Exh. 6. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the respondent had
proper notice of her October 19, 2012 hearing date. Furthermore, the Cour cannot fnd that the
events described in the motion to reopen amount to "exceptional circumstances." Te fct that
the respondent frget that she had a hearing on October 19, 2012 is not exceptional circumstance.
Forgetting about one's hearing date afer being personally notifed of the hearing date is not a
compelling circumstance akin to the death of an immediate family member or serious illness of
the respondent. Likewise, the fct that someone in the attorey's ofce gave the respondent a
wrong hearing date afer she was property notifed of the correct hearing date by the Court is not
a compelling circumstance that rises to the level of an "exceptional circumstance" as
contemplated by the Act in INA§ IA§ 240(e)(l).
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful