Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Boston, MA 02114
A 202-125-309
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,
DCrutL cQ./lA)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Holiona, Hope Malia
Holmes, David 8.
Miller, Neil P.
Userteam: Docket
Herrero, Johanna
Date:
MAY -7201
APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Johanna M. Herrero, Esquire
APPLICATION: Reopening
The respondent has appealed the Immigration Judge's January 30, 2015, decision denying
her motion to reopen removal proceedings, in which the respondent was ordered removed in
absentia under section 240(b)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5).
The Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") has not responded to the respondent's appeal,
which will be sustained.
The respondent has established exceptional circumstances for not appearing at her
December 3, 2014, hearing. The corroborating affidavits of the respondent, her bond obligor,
and an attorney sufficiently demonstrate that the respondent relied on an Immigration and
Customs Enforcement officer's advice, such that the respondent believed she was obligated to
travel to Massachusetts following her release from custody and would be able to change the
venue of her proceedings to Boston, Massachusetts. Further, the respondent diligently pursued
reopening after learning of the in absentia removal order. See generally Matter of C-R-C-,
24 I&N Dec. 677 (BIA 2008). Under the circumstances, including the lack of opposition from
the DHS to the respondent's motion below and on appeal, we will sustain the appeal.
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.
FURTHER ORDER: The venue is changed from Dallas, Texas to the Immigration Court in
Boston, Massachusetts.
FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Court for further
proceedings consistent with the foregoing decision and for the entry of a new decision.
t:>e
Q J)
L.__
____
FoRTHlIBoARD
.
Cite as: Sara Del Carmen Guzman, A202 125 309 (BIA May 7, 2015)
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
...
TX
SUITE 1060
75242
Herrero,
98
Johanna
North Washington St
Suite 402
Boston,
MA
02114
FILE A 202-125-309
IN THE MATTER OF
GUZMAN,
DATE:
Jan 30,
2015
THIS DECISION
APPEALS
SEE THE ENCLOSED FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPERLY PREPARING YOUR APPEAL.
YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL,
ATTACHED
DOCUMENTS,
Leesburg Pike,
FALLS CHURCH,
VA
b. ,
... p.i
Suite 2000
20530
a-
.
11,
IQN
(3)
U.S.C.
TO REOPEN,
'
OTHER:
HotuiJ
SUITE 1060
TX
0TO eq:no
cknd
{ )L7
COURT CLERK
IMMIGRATION COURT
CC:
PEGGY PRICE
125 E. HWY 114,
IRVING,
TX,
STE 500
75062
"' .......
FF
This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Respondent's January 26, 2015,
Motion to Reopen. For the reasons set forth below, it will be DENIED.
The Immigration Judge may rescind an
the respondent's Constitutional right to adequate notice, the alien may file a motion to
reopen at any time and the court may rescind an
demonstrates that the alien did not receive adequate notice in accordance with the [notice
requirements of the INA]." INA 240(b)(5)(C)(ii). Second, a motion to reopen may be
rescinded if it is filed within 180 days of the order of removal and if the alien can prove
exceptional
circumstances
existed
to excuse his
failure
to
appear.
C.F .R.
1003.23(b)(4)(ii).
Proper notice can be accomplished through personal service of the written notice,
or if personal service is not practicable, through service by mail to the Respondent. INA
239(a)(l). A Notice of Hearing is properly served when it is personally delivered to the
alien or his attorney, or when it is mailed to the attorney or to the last address provided by
the alien in accordance with INA 239(a)(l)(F). INA 239(a)(l)(G)(i). Additionally,
service by mail of a Notice of Hearing is sufficient if there is proof of attempted delivery
to the alien1s most recently provided address. INA 239(c)
Matter of W-F-, 21
"
as
those
[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.'" IN A 240(e)(1).
The court may also invoke its
exceptional situations."
discretion to reopen
In the present case, the Respondent was personally served with the Notice to
Appear (NTA) while she was in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Page I of3
(ICE).
contents of the NTA in Spanish, and she signed the document. Id. The Respondent also
received a Notice of Hearing (NOH) while in custody informing her of her hearing before
the Court on November 24, 2014. NOH, dated Nov. 19, 2014.
evidence offered by the Government, the Court found the charge of removal against the
Respondent established and ordered her removed to El Salvador. 8 C.F.R. 1003.26(c).
Page 2 of3
She was then served with her Notice of Hearing while in the custody of the
Government.
See NOH dated, Nov. 19, 2014; See NOH dated, Nov. 24, 2014.
Consequently, service of the NOH in this case was proper. Furthermore, at her hearing on
must
Court even if released on bond. The Immigration Judge warned the Respondent of the
consequences of failing to appear at her hearing. The Immigration Judge asked the
Respondent if she understood these consequences. The Respondent agreed that she
understood. For the foregoing reasons, there is no claim to lack of notice.
Additionally, the Respondent has also failed to establish that exceptional
circumstances caused her failure to appear on December 3, 2014. As reflected by the
recording of the Respondent's hearing on November 24,
2014,
the Respondent
understood that her failure to appear for her next scheduled hearing would result in an
order of removal. The Immigration Judge gave the Respondent an opportunity to ask any
questions she had about the hearing date on December 3, 2014 and the consequences of
failing to appear. Upon questioning by the Immigration Judge, the Respondent stated on
the record that she would "be removed" if, after being released from detention, she failed
to appear for her hearing on December 3, 2014 at the Dallas Immigration Court.
Therefore, the Court finds that the Respondent's purported confusion regarding her
hearing date is not an exceptional circumstance which warrants reopening of the present
proceedings under INA 240(b)(5)(C)(i).
There are only two grounds for rescinding an
proper notice and exceptional circumstances as defined at section 240(e)(1) of the Act,
and the Respondent has not shown that she qualifies for reopening under either ground.
INA 240(b)(S)(C).
Finally, the Court does not see any evidence in the record warranting a
sua sponte
reopening of this case. Matter ofG-D-, 22 I&N Dec. 1 132, 1133 (BIA 1999); Matter of
J-J-, 21 l&N Dec. 976 (BIA 1997).
On this
igration Judge
Copy to:
Chief Counsel, DHS/ICE
Page 3 of3
November 24, 2014, the Immigration Judge informed the Respondent that she
appear for her hearing on December 3, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. before the Dallas Immigration