U.S.

Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office ofthe Clerk

5107 leesb11rg Pike, S11ite 2000 Falls C/111rc/1, Virginia 22041

Oza, Rishi P., Esq. Robert Brown, LLC 1468 W. 9th Street, Suite 800 Cleveland, OH 44113

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel 1240 E. 9th St., Room 585 Cleveland, OH 44199

CLE

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: SALGAU, CONSTANTIN FLORIN

A078-734-430

Date of this notice: 5/14/2012

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

Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members: Miller, Neil P.

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Constantin Florin Salgau, A078 734 430 (BIA May 14, 2012)

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review Falls Chureh. Virginia 22041

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

File:

A078 734 430 - Cleveland, OH

Date:

In re: CONSTANTIN FLORIN SALGAU

MAY 14 20\2

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS MOTION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: APPLICATION: Reconsideration This case was last before the Board on December 9, 2011, when we issued the final administrative order in these proceedings dismissing the respondent's appeal of the Immigration Judge's denial of a continuance. The respondent timely moves for reconsideration of the Board's decision pursuant to section 240(c)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(6). The Department of Homeland Security (OHS) has not responded to the motion. The motion will be granted, our prior decision will be vacated, and the record will be remanded for further proceedings. A motion to reconsider shall specify "errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision." 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(b). Rishi P. Oza, Esquire

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

See Matter of 0-S-G-, 24

I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2006). The respondent contends this

Board erred in our prior decision by failing to adequately consider arguments challenging the Immigration Judge's denial of a continuance. Specifically, he claims that in denying the continuance the Immigration Judge did not properly address the arguments and evidence presented regarding the approvability of the respondent's religious worker visa petition (Form I-360) and his suitability for adjustment of status. We agree with the respondent that the reasons for denying the continuance are not sufficiently articulated on this record. There is no separate oral decision from the Immigration Judge. Rather, the Immigration Judge noted on the summary order that the I-360 was denied twice, but the transcript reflects that he considered additional reasons in denying the continuance. Tr. at 26-29.

See Matter ofA-P-, 22 I&N Dec. 468 (BIA 1999). As we find a full decision is required to explain the reasons
Immigration Judge for a new decision. On remand the Immigration Judge should consider the intervening decision in

for the denial of the continuance, we will vacate our prior order and remand the record to the

Matter ofRajah, 25 I&N Dec.

127 (BIA 2009), and any other evidence or

arguments that the parties would like to present. Accordingly, the following orders are entered: ORDER: The motion to reconsider is granted, and our prior order is vacated. FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order, and for the entry of a new decision.

FOR THE BOARD

Cite as: Constantin Florin Salgau, A078 734 430 (BIA May 14, 2012)