0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
378 просмотров4 страницы
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reopened proceedings sua sponte in light of the respondent’s marriage to his U.S. citizen husband after issuance of the decisions in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), and Matter of Zeleniak, 26 l&N Dec. 158 (BIA 2013), which struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act and recognized the validity of same-sex marriages under the immigration laws. The decision was issued by Member David Holmes. (Note: the Board had denied a prior motion to reopen upon finding the respondent did not submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the marriage was bona fide.)
Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reopened proceedings sua sponte in light of the respondent’s marriage to his U.S. citizen husband after issuance of the decisions in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), and Matter of Zeleniak, 26 l&N Dec. 158 (BIA 2013), which struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act and recognized the validity of same-sex marriages under the immigration laws. The decision was issued by Member David Holmes. (Note: the Board had denied a prior motion to reopen upon finding the respondent did not submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the marriage was bona fide.)
Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reopened proceedings sua sponte in light of the respondent’s marriage to his U.S. citizen husband after issuance of the decisions in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), and Matter of Zeleniak, 26 l&N Dec. 158 (BIA 2013), which struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act and recognized the validity of same-sex marriages under the immigration laws. The decision was issued by Member David Holmes. (Note: the Board had denied a prior motion to reopen upon finding the respondent did not submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the marriage was bona fide.)
Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
217 2nd Avenue Norh Nashville, TN 37201 Name: LOPEZ-RIVERA, MANUEL U.S. Department of Justice Executve Ofce for hnmigation Review Board of Immigration Appeals Ofce of the Clerk 5107 Leesbur Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Churh, Virinia 20530 OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - MEM 167 N. Main St., Suite 737A Memphis, TN 38103 A 089-235-276 Date of this notice: 6/10/2014 Enclosed is a copy of the Boad's decision and order i the above-refrenced case. Enclosure Panel Members: Holmes, David B. Sincerely, Do c t Donna Carr Chief Clerk Trane Userteam: Docket Cite as: Manuel Lopez-Rivera, A089 235 276 (BIA June 10, 2014) 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 For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished U.S. Department of Justice Executive Ofce fr Imigation Review Decision of the Board of Imigation Appeals Falls Church, Virga 2053Q File: A089 235 276 -Memphis, 1 In re: MANUEL LOPEZ-RIVERA IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS MOTION Date: ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: R. Andrew Free, Esquire APPLICATION: Reopening ORDER: JUN 10 201 Considering the totality of circumstaces presented with the respondent's motion, which has not been opposed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the procee4ings are reopened under the provisions of 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(a). Te record will be remanded to the Immigation Judge to provide the respondent an opportunity to pursue relief based on his marriage to a United States citizen. FURTHR ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for fher proceedings not inconsistent with this order and for the ent of a new decision. FOR T BOARD Cite as: Manuel Lopez-Rivera, A089 235 276 (BIA June 10, 2014) 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 Free, R. Andrew PO Box 90568 Nashville, TN 37209 Name: LOPEZ-RIVERA, MANUEL U.S. Department of Justice Executive Ofce fr Imigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Ofce of the Clerk 5/07 Leeburg Pike. Suite 2000 Falb Cl1rch, Vrginia 20530 OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel MEM 167 N. Main St., Suite 737 A Memphis, TN 38103 A 089-235-276 Date of this notice: 1/3/2014 Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case. Enclosure Panel Members: Kendall-Clark, Molly Sincerely, DO ct Donna Carr Chief Clerk Trane 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: Manuel Lopez-Rivera, A089 235 276 (BIA Jan. 3, 2014) U.S. Department of Justice Executive Ofce fr Imigation Review Decision of the Boad of Imigation Appeals Falls Chuch, Viginia 20530 File: A089 235 276 - Memphis, T In re: MAEL LOPEZ-RIVERA I REMOVAL PROCEEDIGS MOTION Date: ON BEHALF OF RSPONDENT: R. Andrew Free, Esquire ON BEHALF OF OHS: APPLICATION: Reopening William A. Lund Assistant Chief Counsel JAN 3 2014 Te respondent's motion to reopen was submited on October 17, 2013, more tha 90 days aer the Boad's dismissal of the respondent's appeal on Mach 20, 2013. Accordingly, this motion to reopen is untimely fled. See section 240( c )(7)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(2). Te Deparment of Homeland Security opposes reopening. The motion to reopen will be denied. The respondent seeks reopening on the basis that, since te issuace of United States v. Windsor, --- U.S. ---, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), ad Matter of Zeleniak, 26 l&N Dec. 158 (BIA 2013), the respondent has maied his United States citizen husband. Te respondent states that he seeks reopening on te basis of a pending I-130 family-based visa petition, and requests a provisional waver based on his ma iage. While the Boad does have the discretionay authority to reopen proceedings sua sponte, that authority is limited to rae, "exceptional" situations. 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(a); Matter of J-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 976 (BIA 1997). Whle a "fdamental" change in law may constitute an "exceptional" situation (see Matter of G-D-, 22 I&N Dec. 1132 (BIA 1999)), the respondent has not shown that reopening in his case is waranted. The respondent's motion includes his mariage certifcate, but no supporting evidence to show that his mariage is bona fde. Even wth a timely motion to reopen, more needs to be shown to warant reopening beyond a couple's maiage certifcate ad a pending 1-130 visa petition. There must also be "clea ad convincing evidence that their mar iage is bona fde." See Matter of Velarde, 23 I&N Dec. 253, 257 (BIA 2002). Therefre, the moton to reopen will be denied. ORER: The motion to reopen is denied. FOR THE BOARD - w a .. E .. . , . .... .. . ..... ...... \ W W T 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: Manuel Lopez-Rivera, A089 235 276 (BIA Jan. 3, 2014)
Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion To File Under Seal + Declaration of Yolanda Huang in Support - Mohrbacher Et Al v. Alameda County Sheriffs Office Et Al