You are on page 1of 6

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 2204/

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - SEA


1000 Second Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98104

Name: DHOLASANIA, SIMRAN

A 200-006-948

Date of this notice: 8/19/2015

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

Dowu... c
Sincerely,

t1AA)

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Holiona, Hope Malia
Grant, Edward R.
Guendelsberger, John

Userteam: Docket

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Nomani, Burhan, Esq.


Burhan Nomani & Associates, P .C.
6161 Savoy Dr., Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77036

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit


www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
Cite as: Simran Dholasania, A200 006 948 (BIA Aug. 19, 2015)
I

U.S. Department of Justice

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review


Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A200 006 948 - Seattle, WA

Date:

AUG 19 20f5

In re: SIMRAN DHOLASANIA

APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Burhan Nomani, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF OHS: Hana Sato
Assistant Chief Counsel
APPLICATION: Reopening
The respondent, a native and citizen of India, was ordered removed in absentia on
February 26, 2014. On March 26, 2014, the respondent filed a motion to reopen proceedings.
The Immigration Judge denied that motion on May 16, 2014, and the respondent filed the instant
appeal. The appeal will be sustained, the in absentia order will be vacated, proceedings will be
reopened, and the record will be remanded.
Upon de novo review of the record and in light of the totality of circumstances presented in
this case, we conclude that the respondent demonstrated that reopening is warranted. See
sections 240(b)(5)(C)(i), (e)(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A.
1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), (e)(I). We will therefore sustain the respondent's appeal and remand the
record for further proceedings.
ORDER: The respondent's appeal is sustained, the in absentia order is vacated, proceedings
are reopened and the record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings and
for the entry of a new decision.

Cite as: Simran Dholasania, A200 006 948 (BIA Aug. 19, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

--

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMMIGRATION COURT
1000 SECOND AVE., SUITE 2500
SEATTLE, WA 98104

IN THE MATTER OF
DHOLASANIA, SIMRAN

FILE A 200-006-948

DATE: May 19, 2014

UNABLE TO FORWARD - NO ADDRESS PROVIDED


ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE. THIS DECISION
IS FINAL UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED WITH THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE MAILING OF THIS WRITTEN DECISION.
SEE THE ENCLOSED FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPERLY PREPARING YOUR APPEAL.
YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL, ATTACHED DOCUMENTS, AND FEE OR FEE WAIVER REQUEST
MUST BE MAILED TO:
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
FALLS CHURCH, VA 20530
ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE AS THE RESULT
OF YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT YOUR SCHEDULED DEPORTATION OR REMOVAL HEARING.
THIS DECISION IS FINAL UNLESS A MOTION TO REOPEN IS FILED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION 242B(c) (3) OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, 8 U.S.C.
SECTION 1252B(c) (3) IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS OR SECTION 240(c)(6),
8 U.S.C. SECTION 1229a(c) (6) IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS. IF YOU FILE A MOTION
TO REOPEN, YOUR MOTION MUST BE FILED WITH THIS COURT:
IMMIGRATION COURT
1000 SECOND AVE., SUITE 2500
SEATTLE, WA 98104
X

OTHER:

ORDER OF IMMIGRATION JUDGE

ERK

CC: HANA SATO, ICE ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL


1000 2ND AVENUE, SUITE 2900
.SEATTLE, WA, 98104

MIGRATION COURT

FF

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Burhan Nomani & Associates, P.C.


Nomani, Burhan
6161 Savoy Dr. Ste 1000
Houston, TX 77036

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMMIGRATION COURT
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

File Number:

Al00-006-948

Simran DHOLASANIA,
Respondent.

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

CHARGE:

INA 212(a)(6)(A)(i) - Alien Present in the United States


Without Admission or Parole

APPLICATION:

Motion to Reopen

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
Burhan Nomani
Burhan Nomani & Associates, P.C.
6161 Savoy Drive, Suite 1000
Houston, Texas 77036

ON BEHALF OF ICE
Hana Sato, Esq.
Assistant Chief Counsel
1000 Second Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98104

DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE


I. Introduction and Procedural History

The Department of Homeland Security -("DHS" or "Government") initiated removal


proceedings against Respondet, Simran Dholasania, by filing a Notice to Appear ("NTA") with
the Seattle Immigration Court on December 26, 2012. Exh. 1. The NTA alleges that Respondent
is a native and citizen oflndia, who arrived in the United States at or near Danville, Washington,
on or about October 23, 2012, and was not then admitted or paroled after inspection. Id The
Government charged Respondent as removable under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i) as an alien present
in the United States without admission or parole. Id. Respondent was scheduled for an initial
master calendar hearing on February 26, 2014. See Exh. 2. On February 11, 2014, Respondent
filed a Motion to Change Venue, which the Court denied based on Respondent's failure to
include written pleadings in her motion. See Immigration Court Practice Manual, Chapter 5 .10(c)
(June 10, 2013). Respondent failed to appear at her hearing and the Court ordered her removed in

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

In the Matter of:

II. Motion to Reopen


An in absentia order of removal may be rescinded where an alien files a motion to reopen
within 180 days of the date of the order of removal and establishes that the failure to appear was
because of "exceptional circumstances" or at any time where the alien establishes that she did
not receive notice. 8 C.F.R. 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). As Respondent concedes notice of her hearing
and has timely filed her motion, the issue is whether she has shown exceptional circumstances
sufficient to warrant reopening. Exceptional circumstances are circumstances beyond the control
of the alien, "such as battery or extreme cruelty to the alien or any child or parent of the alien,
serious illness of the alien, or serious illness or death of the spouse, child, or parent of the alien,
but not including less compelling circumstances." INA 240(e)(I). The decision to grant or deny
a motion to reopen ultimately lies within the discretion of the immigration judge.Id
Respondent has failed to establish that exceptional circumstances prevented her from
attending the hearing. In her motion, Respondent explains that she "remained under the
impression that her case would move to Houston, Texas ...after [her] release from Tacoma. "_ Id.
Although Respondent might reasonably expect her hearing to take place near her residence in
Texas, she received notice in early 2013 that her February 2014 hearing would take place in
Seattle, indicating that her hearing had not been moved to an immigration court in Texas. Exh. 2.
The Court. finds that Respondent has not explained or demonstrated why she waited until three
weeks prior to her hearing to file a motion for change of venue when she had received notice of
her hearing more than one year prior to her hearing date.
Respondent also asserts that she tried to make travel arrangements to attend her hearing
but that she was aware she could not travel by air or bus without identification, which she does
not possess. Resp.' s Motion at 1. She further asserts that she was "told from the community that
if she tried to travel by car, ICE .. . could detain her." Id. She also states that her status as a
minor prevented her from travelling alone. Id While the Court accepts as true her statement that
she does not possess any identification and would not be able to travel by air, Respondent has not
A200-006-948

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

absentia.
On March 26, 2014, Respondent timely filed a motion to reopen removal proeedings,
asserting that exceptional circumstances beyond her control prevented her from traveling to
Washington and attending her hearing. Specifically, Respondent argues that because she did not
have identification documents, she was unable to travel by air or bus to attend her hearing. She
further asserts that she was unable to make any safe arrangements to travel by car from Texas to
Seattle. See Respondent's Motion to Reopen (filed Mar. 26, 2014). On April 4, 2014, the
Department filed its opposition to Respondent's motion. For the following reasons, the Court
denies Respondent's motion to reopen these proceedings.

. ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's motion to reopen and rescind the in absentia
order of removal is DENIED.

})b }Ji
I

Date I

A200-006-948

('

O wiY 4.-,-to
')

')

v
.

Paul A. DeFonzo
Immigration Judge

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

provided a reasonable explanation as to why she was unable to travel from Texas to Washington
when she had previously traveled by bus from Washington to Texas without issue. See id at 1-2;
see also Maroufi v. INS, 772 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1985) ("The BIA is required to accept as true the
facts stated in an alien's affidavit in ruling upon his motion to reopen unless it finds those facts to
be 'inherently unbelievable."'). Similarly, Respondent has provided nothing more than a cursory
statement that traveling by car could not have been arranged with either her mother or her uncle.
See id. Ultimately, Respondent has failed to establish that these obstacles constitute exceptional
circumstances as contemplated by section 240(e)(I) or that they result from compelling
circumstances beyond Respondent's control. IN A 240(e)(I). The Court finds that Respondent
has failed to meet the standard for a motion to reopen and will therefore deny Respondent's
motion.