You are on page 1of 5

U.S.

Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals


Office of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike. Suire 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 2204 I

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - HLG


1717 Zoy Street
Harlingen, TX 78552

Name: GARCIA-ENAMORADO, DORIS ...

A 076-317-461

Date of this notice: 12/29/2016

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

DonnL c

t1AA)

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Adkins-Bianch i Charles K.
Mann i Ana
O'Connor, Blair

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit


www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
Cite as: Doris Yesenia Garcia-Enamorado, A076 317 461 (BIA Dec. 29, 2016)

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

Flores, Moises
Youman Madeo & Fasano
4808 Bergenline Avenue, Suite 402
Union City, NJ 07087

U.S. Department of Justice

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review


Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A076 317 461-Harlingen, TX

Date:

In re: DORIS YESENIA GARCIA-ENAMORADO

DEC 2 9 2016

APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Moises A. Flores, Esquire
APPLICATION: Reopening

The respondent has appealed the Immigration Judge's decision dated January 6, 2016,
denying her motion to reopen. The Immigration Judge had previously ordered the respondent
removed in a bsentia for her failure to appear at the hearing on Decem ber 15, 1997. 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, de novo. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i), (ii). The
Department of Homeland Security has not filed an opposition to the respondent's motion or an
appeal. Upon our de novo review, in light of the totality of the circumstances presented in this
matter, including the respondent's age when she was put into removal proceeding, her TPS
status since 2000, and her family situation, we will sustain the appeal and reopen the proceedings
to allow the respondent another opportunity to appear for a hearing. Accordingly, the following
order will be entered.
ORDER: The respondent's appeal is sustained, the proceedings are reopened, the in a bsentia
removal order is rescinded, and the record is remanded to the Immigration Court for further
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and the entry of a new decision.

Cite as: Doris Yesenia Garcia-Enamorado, A076 317 461 (BIA Dec. 29, 2016)

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

-,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


EXECUTIVE OFFIGE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMMIGRATION COURT
2009 W. JEFRERSON AVE, STE 300
HARLINGEN, TX 18550
I

FILE A 076-317-461
IN THE MATTER OF
GARCIA-ENAMORADO, DORIS YESENIA

DATE: Jan 7, 2016

UNABLE TO FORWARD - NO ADDRESS PROVIDED


ACHED IS A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE. THIS DECISION
FINAL UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED WITH THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
THIN 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 22041
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 rs 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
2009 W. JEFFERSON AVE, STE 300
HARLINGEN, TX 78550
OTHER:

OURT

cc: ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL


1717 ZOY ST.
HARLINGEN, TX, 785520000

IMMIGRATION COURT
0

FF

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

You.man Madeo & Fasano


Flores, Moises
4808 Bergenline Avenue, Suite 402
Union City, NJ 07087

tt.. i.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
HARLINGEN IMMIGRATIO COURT

HARLINGEN, TEXA

GARCIA-ENAMORADO, DORIS
YESENIA
RESPONDENT
APPLICATIONS:

)
)
)
)
)

Janu ,2016
Case Number: A 076-317-461
In Removal Proceedings

Motion to Reopen

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT


Moises A. Flores, Esq.
Youman, Madeo & Fasano, LLP
4808 Bergenline Ave, Suite 402
Union City, NJ 07087

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 December 15, 1997, the Court ordered the respondent removed to Honduras in
absentia pursuant to section 240(b)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or Act).
The respondent, through counsel, filed a motion to reopen on November 30, 2015, requesting
that the Court reopen her removal proceedings. The respondent's motion to reopen will be
denied.
The motion requests that the Court reopen the respondent's removal proceedings so that
she may apply for new relief from removal that was not available at the time of her 1997 removal
hearing. The respondent is now married to a United States citizen and has an approved family
based visa petition. If these proceedings are reopened, the respondent intends to apply for
adjustment of status.
It is well-established that an alien seeking reopening bears a heavy burden. INS v. Abudu,
485 U.S. 94, 110 (1988). In this regard, the United States Supreme Court has stated: "Motions
for reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as are petitions for
rehearing, and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. This is
especially true in a deportation proceeding where, as a general matter, every delay works to the
advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States." INS v.
Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992) (citations omitted).
The Court finds that the respondent's motion to reopen is untimely. Motions to reopen
must be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of the final administrative order of removal
unless the motion qualifies for one of the exceptions to the filing deadline. See INA 240(c)(7).

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

IN THE MATTER OF

Here, the respondent's motion was filed more than fifteen years after she was ordered removed
in absentia. The motion does not assert that the motion is su bject to any of the exceptions to the
90-day filing deadline, nor does the record support such a finding.

Accordingly, the following orders shall be entered:


ORDER: The respondent's motion to reopen is DENIED.

David Ayala
United States Imm1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THIS DOCUMENT WAS SERVED BY: MA
)
)( ERSONAL SERV
p 1-1$
TO: ) ALIEN
(
( ) IEN C/0 CUSTODIA LIEN'
\:= 4
DATE:
'4
BY: COURT AFF --------'---------ATTACH!vl. N S: () EOIR-33 ( ) EOIR-28
LEGAL
()
SERVICES LIST OTHER

APPEAL FORMS

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

The Court also declines to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen the respondent's
removal proceedings. See Matter ofJ-J, 21 I&N Dec. 976 (BIA 1997). The respondent has not
demonstrated any extraordinary circumstances that warrant reopening sua sponte. 8 C.F .R.
1003.23(b)( l). The Court's sua sponte authority to reopen is not intended as a method by which
aliens can circumvent filing deadlines imposed by the Act and regulations.