Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3


Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Office of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 20530

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - BUF

130 Delaware Avenue, Room 203
Buffalo, NY 14202


A 087-513-649
Date of this notice: 6/18/2014

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

DonrtL ctVvu
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Panel Members:
Wendtland, Linda S.
Donovan, Teresa L.
Pauley, Roger
Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

Cite as: Luis Arturo Redrovan-Quinteros, A087 513 649 (BIA June 18, 2014)

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

Saccone, Kurt R., Esq.

Saccone & Dobosiewicz LLP
300 International Drive, Ste. 100
Williamsville, NY 14221

. U.S. l>epartment of Justice

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 20530

File: A087 513 649 - Buffalo, NY


JUN 18 2014


ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Kurt R. Saccone, Esquire

Carol G. Bridge
Assistant Chief Counsel

Notice: Sec.

212(a)(6)(A)(i), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)] Present without being admitted or paroled
212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I)] Immigrant - no valid immigrant visa or entry document

APPLICATION: Adjustment of status

The respondent, a native and citizen of Ecuador, appeals the Immigration Judge's
May 31, 2012, decision finding the respondent removable as charged and ineligible for
adjustment of status. See section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
1255(a). The record will be remanded.
The Board reviews an Immigration Judge's findings of fact, including credibility
determinations and (under the law of the Circuit with jurisdiction over this case) the likelihood of
future events, under a "clearly erroneous" standard. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i); see Huang
v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012). We review all other issues, including questions of law,
judgment, or discretion, under a de novo standard. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(ii).
The respondent acknowledges, and the record demonstrates, that on August 20, 2010,
attorney Anne Doebler appeared in court, admitted the factual allegations contained in the
respondent's Notice to Appear (Form I-862), and conceded his removability under sections
212(a)(6)(A)(i) and 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. l182(a)(6)(A)(i), (a)(7)(A)(i)(I)
(Respondent's Br. at 1-2; Tr. at 6-7). However, the respondent correctly notes that, although the
Immigration Judge stated that Ms. Doebler was representing the respondent, the Immigration
Judge did not ask the respondent on the record whether Ms. Doebler was his attorney or whether
she was authorized to speak for him (Respondent's Br. at 1; Tr. at 6). Further, we note that the
record contains no .Form EOIR-28 (Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative
Before the Immigration Court) demonstrating Ms. Doebler's formal representation of the
Cite as: Luis Arturo Redrovan-Quinteros, A087 513 649 (BIA June 18, 2014)

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


A087 513 649

respondent before the Immigration Court. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.17(a); Immigration Court
Practice Manual, Chapters 2.l(b), 2.3(c); see also Immigration Court Practice Manual, Chapters
2.3(e)-(f) (directing each attorney of record to submit a separate Form EOIR-28, and providing
that " [o] nly individuals, not firms or offices, may represent parties before the Immigration

ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings
consistent with this order and for the entry of a new decision.

Board Member Roger A. Pauley respectfully dissents. The initial hearing record for May 26,
2010, makes clear that the respondent speaks English, and the respondent's proceedings then and
thereafter were conducted in English with no interpreter. Tr. at 1-3. And at the subsequent
August 20, 2010, hearing, the respondent made no comment or objection when the Immigration
Judge, in introductory remarks, stated that "Ann Dobler is representing the respondent." Tr. at 6.
In light of this, there is no reason to permit the respondent to withdraw the concession of
removability made on the respondent's behalf by Ms. Dobler. See Hoodho v. Holder, 558 F.3d
184, 190-92 (2d Cir. 2009). At that time, Ms. Dobler indicated that she was investigating his
eligibility for cancellation of removal, which does not require that he had been admitted to the
United States, as does his current desire to pursue adjustment of status. Tr. at 7-8.

Cite as: Luis Arturo Redrovan-Quinteros, A087 513 649 (BIA June 18, 2014)

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

Because the record does not demonstrate that Ms. Doebler formally represented the
respondent, we find clear error in the Immigration Judge's finding, based in large part on Ms.
Doebler's concessions of removability, that the respondent's removability was established by
clear and convincing evidence (1.J. at 1). Accordingly, we will remand to the Immigration Judge
to take new pleadings and make a new determination concerning the respondent's removability.
On remand, the parties may present additional arguments and evidence concerning the
respondent's removability, the Department of Homeland Security may introduce new allegations
and charges of removability as appropriate, and the respondent may apply for any relief for
which he may be eligible. We express no opinion concerning the respondent's removability or
his ultimate eligibility for any form of relief from removal.