Alfred B. Taylor, Esq.

U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Offce fr Im
m
igration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Ofce of the Clerk
5 J 07 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Fals Church, Vrginia 20530
875 Massachusett Avenue, Suite 31
Cambridge, MA 02139
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel - BOS
P.O. Box 8728
Boston, MA 02114
Name: QUARTEY, FREDERICK ANSA . A 096-642-201
Date of this notice: 7/30/2014
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Creppy, Michael J.
Mullane, Hugh G.
Liebowit, Ellen C
Sincerely,
Do  c t
Dona Car
Chief Clerk
\<,1iii:«11T!r;
Userteam: 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For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished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: Frederick Ansa Quartey, A096 642 201 (BIA July 30, 2014)
,Y
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Offce fr Immigation Review
Decision of the Board oflmmigration Appeals
Falls Church, Virginia 20530
File: A096 642 201 - Boston, MA
In re: FREDERCK ANSA OUARTEY
IN RMOVAL PROCEEDIGS
APPEAL
Date:
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Alfed B. Taylor, Esquire
APPLICATION: Continuance
JUL 3 0 2014
The respondent, a native and citizen of Ghana, appeals fom te decision of te Immigration
Judge, dated June 22, 2012, denying his request fr a continuance. The record will be remanded
fr frher proceedings.
We review fr clear error the fndings of fct, including the determination of credibility,
made by the Immigration Judge. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.l(d)(3)(i). We review de novo all oter issues,
including whether the paies have met the relevant burden of proof, and issues of discretion.
8 C.F .R. § 1003 .1 ( d)(3 )(ii).
A Notice to Appear was issued in this case on June 26, 2009, and the respondent frst
appeared befre the Immigration Judge on September 16, 2009. Te next hearing was held on
June 20, 2012, at whch time the respondent stated that a visa petition had been fled on his
behalf by his lawfl permanent resident spouse; it had not yet been approved. The respondent
was given 2 days to prepare to present his arguments concering a continuance pursuant to
the criteria established by the Board. See Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009).
On June 22, 2012, the Immigration Judge denied the respondent's request fr a continuance, and
his requests fr administative closure and voluntary depaure. The respondent has appealed
fom this decision.
The Immigration Judge denied the request fr a continuance fr two reasons. First, he fund
that, although the respondent had a visa petition fled on his behalf, it had not yet been approved.
Fuher, if it were approved, as his spouse is a lawfl permanent resident, the respondent would
not immediately be eligible to adjust his status (I.J. at 3, 6; Tr. at 4-5, 13-15). In this regard,
te Immigration Judge noted the minimal evidence supporing :he bona fdes of this marage
(I.J. at 5-6). Second, the Imigration Judge considered the questionable nature of the
respondent's prior ma  iage. For this prior ma  iage, the respondent had fled fr a Waiver of the
joint Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence (For 1-751) ad this was denied (l.J. at 3-6;
Ex. 5). The Deparment of Homeland Secuty ("DHS") also opposed the request fr a
continuance in the cur ent proceeding (Tr. at 21 ).
On appeal, the respondent has submitted evidence that his curent spouse has become
a United States citizen. The respondent, therefre, app�ars statutorily eligible to adjust his
status if his visa petition is approved. Although the bona
f
de nature of this marriage is yet to
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: Frederick Ansa Quartey, A096 642 201 (BIA July 30, 2014)
A096 642 201
be established, we note that at the heang below the respondent was only allowed a 2-day
continuance to gather evidence to support his request fr a continuance. Further, the DHS has
not fled any opposition to the appeal. At this juncture, we conclude that a remand is warranted.
In this regard, we observe that, although there could be questions concering the validity of the
respondent's prior mariage, his previous For 1-751 was not denied based on faud. On remand,
however, the Immigration Judge may evaluate any issues related to the respondent's eligibility
fr adjustment of status; if the visa petition at issue is not yet adjudicated, the Immigration Judge
should consider all issues relevant to whether ay fher continuances are waranted. See
Matter of Hashmi, supra; see als o Alsamhouri v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 117, 122 (1st Cir. 2007);
Matter of Perez-Andrade, 19 l&N Dec. 433, 434 (BIA 1987). Our decision to remand the record
is not intended to refect an opinion concering the respondent's ultimate stattory eligibility or
any exercise of discretion by the Immigration Judge in this case.
ORDER: The record is remaded fr fher proceedings and the entry of a new decision.
2
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: Frederick Ansa Quartey, A096 642 201 (BIA July 30, 2014)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
File: A096-642-201
In the Matter of
June 22, 2012
FREDERICK ANSA QUARTEY IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
RESPONDENT
CHRGE: Section 237 (a) (1) (D) (i) of the Imigration and
Nationality Act.
APPLICATIONS: Continuation of proceedings; administrative
closure; voluntary departure under Section
240B (b) ; adjustment of status.
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ALFRED B. TAYLOR
ON BEHALF OF OHS: MELISSA C. GAVEGNANO
ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE
The respondent is an adult male, native and citizen of
Ghana. The respondent was placed into removal proceedings
through the issuance of a Notice to Appear dated June 25, 2009.
See Exhibit No. 1. That document is also known as a Form I-862.
The respondent, through counsel, filed written pleadings in
this case. See Exhibit No. 2. The respondent admits all of the
1
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
allegations in the Notice to Appear and concedes the one ground
of removability. The respondent also designates Ghana as the
country for removal purposes. This Court therefore finds that
removability has been established by evidence that is clear and
convincing, and this Court will designate Ghana as the country
for removal purposes.
The respondent seeks a continuation of these proceedings so
that an I-130 that was filed last week by his new lawful
permanent resident spouse may be adjudicated. The Board of
Immigration Appeals in their decision in Matter of Hashmi, 24
I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009) , has set forth parameters with which
this Court.must use to determine whether good cause exists to
continue proceedings such as these proceedings.
The Board has set out five factors that should be
considered, although the Board makes clear that the Board is not
limited to these factors. First is DHS's position regarding the
motion to continue. In this case, OHS is opposed. Second,
whether the underlying visa petition is prima facie approvable.
Third, the respondent's statutory eligibility for adjustment of
status. Fourth, whether the respondent's application for
adjustment of status merits a favorable exercise of discretion.
And five, the reason for the continuance and any other relevant
procedural factors. In this case, for the reasons set forth
below, this Court finds that good cause does not exist to
continue these proceedings.
A096-642-201 2 June 22, 2012
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
·�

The Court finds that whether or not the underlying visa
petition is prima facie.approvable is ultimately irrelevant, as
the respondent is not statutorily eligible for adjustment of
status. The respondent's spouse is a lawful permanent resident,
and although the respondent contends she has filed an
application for citizenship, at this time the respondent is
statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status. The respondent
concedes that because his spouse is a legal permanent resident,
if his I-130 were approved today, he would not be eligible to
adjust his status as the visa numers would not be current.
Additionally, this Court finds that Exhibit No. 5 in the
record, the denial of the respondent's I-751, that is, his Form
I-751, good-faith waiver denial, presents significant negative
discretionary factors in this case. Although counsel challenges
those factors set forth in Exhibit No. 5, he does so
unconvincingly. The procedural history in this case is
significant, and therefore both factors four and five as set
forth in Matter of Hashmi are relevant and Exhibit No. 5 is
relevant in this regard.
Although the Court notes that the respondent did have a
previous I-130 approved on his behalf, the Department of
Homeland Security has, in a very detailed decision that is four
pages long, denied the respondent's good-faith waiver request,
his Form I-751 request, on January 31, 2012. This request and
petition by the respondent related to his marriage to Sonjia·
A096-642-201 3 June 22, 2012
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
Langford, which occurred on May 19, 2005, in Western
Massachusetts. The respondent's status was initially adjusted
to that of a conditional permanent resident on February 8, 2006.
The respondent's divorce from Ms. Langford became final on
January 27, 2010. OHS concluded that the respondent had not
submitted sufficient evidence to show that, during the time he
and Ms. Langford were married, they created a shared life
together.
The U. S. Citizenship and Imigration Services goes on in
Exhibit No. 5 to note that the responde�� testified before OHS
that Ms. Langford was born in New Bedford, Massachusetts, yet
her birth certificate reflected that she was born in Brockton,
Massachusetts. The exhibit goes on to note that initially the
respondent and Ms. Langford filed the joint Form I-751 on
January 22, 2008, but this form was denied because Ms. Langford
failed to appear for the interview.
OHS notes that, in support of the first Form I-751, the
respondent submitted a lease for the residence at 40 Country
Club Boulevard. OHS notes that although the lease is dated on
May 20, 2005, the lease lists a starting date of June 1, 2004.
They go on to note that as neither the respondent or his then
wife were residing in the apartment on June 1, 2004. This
discrepancy in the date calls into question the validity of the
lease. CIS goes on to note other inconsistencies regarding the
lease.
A096-642-201 4 June 22, 2012
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
The respondent testified, according to Exhibit 5, that
Ms. Langford was self-employed braiding hair and that she did
not have any other employment. However, according to the
biographic information, Form G-325-A, that Ms. Langford
submitted in support of the petition for alien relative, the
Form I-130, Ms. Langford indicated she worked as a sales
representative for ACN in New Bedford.
The Court notes that OHS goes on for several more pages in
this decision and this Court, noting that this is a full exhibit
in this case, does give this
.
.. document full weight. The Court
notes counsel's arguments against the OHS denial, but at the
same time notes that the respondent is eligible for a review of
this 751 denial and he is not seeking that review before this
Court. This Court takes that all into consideration.
The Court takes into consideration the procedural history
in this case where the respondent was first granted conditional
residence regarding his United States citizen spouse that he is
now divorced from. That a week before the Master Calendar
hearing, his new wife, who is a lawful permanent resident, filed
an I-130 visa petition for him. Those documents are contained
in Exhibit No. 4. The marriage appears to have occurred in
April of 2012, only a few months before the Master Calentar
hearing. None of this convinces the Court that the respondent
has presented good cause to continue these proceedings for the
adjudication of the I-130 filed by his lawful permanent resident
A096-642-201 5 June 22, 2012
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
spouse. For all of those reasons, this Court will deny the
respondent's request for a continuance.
For the reasons set forth above, this Court finds no basis
to adinistratively close these proceedings for the pending
I-130. If this Court is not willing to continue the
proceedings, that is, because the respondent has not been able
to demonstrate good cause to continue the proceedings for the
adjudication, this Court is not therefore willing to
administratively close the proceeding for that purpose.
Because the

!espondent does not presently have an approved
I-130 and because even if he did have an approved I-130, he is
not eligible to adjust his status, his application to adjust
status is pretermitted.
Lastly, the respondent has applied for voluntary departure
under Section 240B(b); that is, voluntary departure at the
conclusion of proceedings. As DH� has argued, the respondent
has failed to demonstrate his statutory eligibility for this
relief. The respondent must demonstrate that he has been
physically present in the United. States for a period of at least
one year imediately preceding the date the Notice to Appear was
served, he must demonstrate that he is and has been a person of
good moral character for at least five years imediately the
alien's application for voluntary departure, he must demonstrate
that he is not deportable under Section 237(a) (2) (A) (iii) or
Section 237(a) (4), and he must establish by clear and convincing
A096-642-201 6 June 22, 2012
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
evidence that he has the means to depart the United States and
intends to do so. Additionally, an alien permitted to depart
voluntarily under this subsection shall be required to post a
voluntary departure bond.
The respondent has not demonstrated his willingness or his
ability to post that bond. Therefore, although this Court
considers the respondent's testimony regarding his voluntary
departure application, this Court finds that he has not
demonstrated his statutory eligibility for voluntary departure.
Therefore, this Court will deny the respondent's voluntary
.· ·
departure application under Section 240B(b) of the Act.
The respondent has applied for no other relief in this
case, and therefore this Court will order the respondent removed
from the United States to Ghana based upon the one charge
contained in the Notice to Appear at Exhibit No. 1.
This Court does note that the respondent's current wife was
not available to be present at the hearing today. However, this
Court finds that even were his wife present today and even were
the respondent to demonstrate that his current marriage is bona
fide and that the visa petition is prima facie approvable, that
changes nothing in regards to the Court's above finding.
Therefore, this Court finds that the fact that the respondent's
wife was not available today does not affect in any way this
Court's decision and would not change this Court's decision.
A096-642-201 7 June 22, 2012
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
.· ·
.�
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondent's request to
continue these proceedings be, and is hereby, denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent's request to
administratively close these proceedings be, and is hereby,
denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent's application for
adjustment of status be, and is hereby, pretermitted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent's application for
voluntary departure under Section 240B(b) be, and is hereby,
denied.
A096-642-201

 �   _
MATTHEW J. D'ANGELO
Imigration Judge
8

'�·.
I
¯..
Ç!1
f~·
, .. · .. '
June 22, 2012
\
•,
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
CERTIFICATE PAGE
I hereby certify that the attached proceeding before JUDGE
MATTHEW J. D'ANGELO, in the matter of:
FREDERICK ANSA QUARTEY
A096-642-201
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
is an accurate, verbatim transcript of the recording as provided
by the Executive Office for Inigration Review and that this is
the original transcript thereof for the file of the Executive
Office for Immigration Review.
FREE STATE REPORTING, Inc.
SEPTEMBER 7, 2012
(Completion Date)
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