U.S. Department of .

Justice

Executive Otfice for lmmigration Review
Board o.f Jmmigmt ion Appeals
Office o.fthe Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike. Suite 2()00
Falls Church. Virginia 220,/ I

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - HLG
1717 Zoy Street
Harlingen, TX 78552

Name: ROMERO-GONZALEZ, JUANA E ...

A 097-739-329

Date of this notice: 1/8/2016

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

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:

Neal, David L
Greer, Anne J.
O'Herron, Margaret M

Userteam:

Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit
www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
Cite as: Juana Esperanza Romero-Gonzalez, A097 739 329 (BIA Jan. 8, 2016)

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

Quiroz, Liliana L., Esq.
Law Offices of Liliana L. Quiroz, LLC
363 Union Avenue
Elizabeth, NJ 07208

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A097 739 329 - Harlingen, TX

Date:

In re: JUANA ESPERANZA ROMERO-GONZALEZ

JA.N - B 2016

APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Liliana L. Quiroz, Esquire
APPLICATION: Reconsideration; reopening

The respondent has appealed from the Immigration Judge's decision dated April 16, 2015,
denying the respondent's motion to reconsider the March 10, 2015, decision denying the
respondent's motion reopen proceedings in which she was ordered removed in absentia. The
Department of Homeland Security has not responded to the appeal. The appeal will be
sustained.
We review an Immigration Judge's findings of fact for clear error, but questions of law,
discretion, and judgment, and all other issues in appeals, are reviewed de novo. 8 C.F.R.
§§ 1003.l(d)(3)(i),(ii).
We have considered the totality of the circumstances presented in this case, and find that an
exceptional situation has been demonstrated based on the respondent's status as a minor when
she was released from the custody of United States immigration authorities to her father who
provided an incorrect address on her behalf. These circumstances warrant reopening to allow the
respondent an opportunity to have a hearing and apply for relief from removal. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(l); Matter of J-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 976 (BIA 1997). Accordingly, the following
orders will be entered.
ORDER: The respondent's appeal from the Immigration Judge's denial of the motion to
reconsider the denial of reopening is sustained.
FURTHER ORDER: The respondent's motion to reopen is granted and the record is
remanded for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the issuance of a
new decision.

Cite as: Juana Esperanza Romero-Gonzalez, A097 739 329 (BIA Jan. 8, 2016)

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
HARLINGEN IMMIGRATtO!�URT
HARLINGEN, TE

JUANA ESPERANZA ROMERO­
GONZALEZ
RESPONDENT
APPLICATIONS:

)
)
)
)
)

April

lh

2015

Case Number: A 097 739 329
In Removal Proceedings

Motions to Reconsider

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Liliama L. Quiroz, Esq.
Law Offices of Liliana L. Quiroz, LLC
363 Union Avenue
Elizabeth, NJ 07208

ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT
Assistant Chief Counsel
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
1717 Zoy Street
Harlingen, TX 78552

ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE
On January 15, 2004, the Court ordered the respondent removed to El Salvador in absentia
pursuant to section 240(b)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or Act). The Court
denied respondent's motion to reopen in a written decision dated March 10, 2015. On April 9, 2015,
the respondent filed the instant motion to reconsider. The motion will be denied.
A motion to reconsider must be filed within thirty days of the dates of entry of the final
administrative order of removal. INA§ 240(c)(6)(B). It must also state the reasons for the motion
by specifying the errors of fact or law in a prior decision removal order, and it must be supported by
pertinent authority. INA§ 240(c)(6); 8 C.F.R.§ 1003.23(b)(2); Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56
(BIA 2006). A motion to reconsider requests that the original decision be reexamined in light of
additional legal arguments, a change of law, or an argument or aspect of the case that was
overlooked. Matter ofRamos, 23 I&N Dec. 336, 338 (BIA 2002); Matter ofCerna, 20 I&N Dec. 399
(BIA 1991).
The motion to reconsider asserts that the Court erred in denying the motion to reopen by
overlooking arguments and that new evidence has come to light since the March I 0, 2015 decision
denying the motion to reopen. The respondent first asserts that the Court failed to consider the
respondent's minority at the time she was ordered removed. The motion to reconsider also argues
that the respondent's father's act of providing immigration officials with a fictitious address for her
is analogous to ineffective assistance of counsel and should be analyzed under section
240(b )(5)(C)(i) of the Act. Additionally, the respondent contends that the deadline for filing a
motion to reopen to seek relief under NACARA should be equitably tolled as a result of her minority

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

)

IN THE MATTER OF

/-;.
and because she did not learn of her father's negligent conduct until the Court's March 10, 2015
written decision denying her motion to reopen. Finally,the respondent seeks reconsideration as her
children have recently been diagnosed with ADHD and developmental delays.

The Court also finds that the respondent failed to raise any arguments in the motion to
reconsider that establishes error in the Court's March 10, 2015 decision. The Court expressly
considered the respondent's age at the time she was placed into proceedings and ordered removed,
and concluded that her motion to reopen based on exceptional circumstances was untimely. The
Court also considered her argument for equitable tolling in that the Court explicitly declined to
exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen. See Ramos-Bonilla v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 216,218 (5th
Cir. 2008) (recognizing that the Fifth Circuit has not recognized the doctrine of equitable tolling in
the motion to reopen context, and held that a request for equitable tolling of an untimely motion to
reopen on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel is "in essence an argument that the BIA
should have sua sponte reopened the proceeding based upon the doctrine of equitable tolling"). The
respondent has also failed to cite support for her claim that a parent's negligence should be treated as
ineffective assistance of counsel under section 240(b )(5)(C)(i) of the Act, and the Court rejects such
an argument. Based on all of the above, the Court finds that the respondent has not established an
error of law or fact in its decision not to reopen the respondent's removal proceedings.
The motion also requests that the respondent's removal proceedings be reopened in light of
newly discovered evidence. The respondent has provided evidence that her two minor children have
been diagnosed with ADHD and some developmental delays. The Court finds that this new evidence
is beyond the scope of the motion to reconsider, which only seeks to assess the Court's prior decision
based on the record of proceeding at that time the decision was made. Insofar as the respondent
seeks further consideration of this newly-submitted evidence, such a request is in the nature of a new
motion to reopen, which is number-barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (providing that only one
motion to reopen seeking rescission of an in absentia order entered in removal proceedings may be
filed).
Accordingly, the following orders shall be entered:
ORDER: The respondent's motion to reconsider is DENIED.

David Ayala
United States Immigration Judge

2

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

The Court finds the respondent's motion to reconsider is timely as it was filed within 30 days
of the date the Court denied her motion to reopen.