U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals
Q{fice of the Clerk
5/07 leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 2204/

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - CHI

525 West Van Buren Street
Chicago, IL 60607

Name: ARANA-SANCHEZ, CALIXTO RE...

A 205-278-4 68
Date of this notice: 3/14/2016

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

DGnltL

{!l1/Vt.)

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:

O'Leary, Brian M.

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
Cite as: Calixto Rene Arana-Sanchez, A205 278 468 (BIA March 14, 2016)

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

Pollock, Scott D., Esq.

Scott D. Pollock & Associates, P.C.
105 W. Madison, Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60602

U.S. Department of Justice

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A205 278 468 - Chicago, IL

Date:

In re: CALIXTO RENE ARANA-SANCHEZ

MAR 1 4 2015

APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Scott D. Pollock, Esquire
The respondent, a native and citizen of Guatemala, appeals from the decision of the
Immigration Judge, dated November 10, 2014, denying the respondent's request for a
continuance and ordering the respondent removed to Guatemala. The record will be remanded to
the Immigration Judge.
The Board reviews an Immigration Judge's findings of fact, including findings as to the
credibility of testimony, under the "clearly erroneous" standard. 8 C.F.R. 1003. l(d)(3)(i). The
Board reviews questions of law, discretion, and judgment and all other issues in appeals from
decisions oflmmigration Judges de novo. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(ii).
On appeal, the respondent urges that remanded proceedings are warranted so that he may
pursue post-conclusion voluntary departure pursuant to section 240B(b) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229c(b). We agree. The record reflects that the respondent
appeared pro se before the Immigration Judge, and the Immigration Judge, after questioning the
respondent regarding the contents of the Notice to Appear (Form 1-862) and the respondent's
family ties in the United States, determined that the respondent was not eligible for any relief
from removal. The Immigration Judge asked the respondent: "did you want to request voluntary
departure or do you want me to order you removed then you can appeal?" (Tr. at 43). The
Immigration Judge then stated that the maximum time she could give the respondent for
voluntary departure was 120 days, after which the respondent stated: "I would accept the
appeal?" The Immigration Judge then informed the respondent that he would order the
respondent removed (Tr. at 43).
The record indicates that the respondent, who entered the United States in 2008, may be
eligible not just for pre-conclusion voluntary departure, as the Immigration Judge indicated, but
also for post-conclusion voluntary departure. Matter of Cordova, 22 I&N Dec. 966, 970 n.4
(BIA 1999) (holding that an Immigration Judge must advise a respondent of the forms of relief
for which he or she is apparently eligible, including voluntary departure). Because it is not clear
that the Immigration Judge informed the respondent of his potential eligibility for
post-conclusion voluntary departure, we conclude that a remand is warranted for the Immigration
Judge to determine whether the respondent is eligible for voluntary departure and if so, to
provide the respondent with another opportunity to pursue voluntary departure, either
pre-conclusion or post-conclusion, and further to advise the respondent regarding the difference
between the two forms of voluntary departure. See sections 240B(a), (b) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229c(a), (b); Matter ofArguelles-Campos, 22 l&N Dec. 811, 817
(BIA 1999).
Cite as: Calixto Rene Arana-Sanchez, A205 278 468 (BIA March 14, 2016)

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

A205 278 468

Accordingly, the following order will be entered.

2
Cite as: Calixto Rene Arana-Sanchez, A205 278 468 (BIA March 14, 2016)

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

ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings
consistent with the foregoing decision.

November 10, 2014

File: A205-278-468
In the Matter of

CALIXTO RENE ARANA-SANCHEZ

RESPONDENT

)
)
)
)

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

CHARGES:

Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the INA - present in the United States

without being admitted or paroled.

APPLICATIONS:

Motion to continue.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: PRO SE

ON BEHALF OF OHS: RENATA PARRAS

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

The respondent is a citizen and native of Guatemala. He arrived in the
United States at or near an unknown place on or about an unknown date. He was not
admitted or paroled by an Immigration officer. The Department of Homeland Security
initiated removal proceedings by issuing a Notice to Appear on September 26, 2012,
charging the respondent under Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the I NA, in that he is present in
the United States without being admitted or paroled.
At a hearing on November 14, 2013, the respondent appeared and

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

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

requested more time to speak to an attorney. The Court granted his motion for a
continuance and scheduled his case for October 7, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. at the Chicago

November 10, 2014 at 1 :00 p.m. at the Chicago Immigration Court.

On November 10, 2014 1 the respondent appeared without counsel. He
admitted to the factual allegations contained in the Notice to Appear and conceded
removability as charged. The Court designated his country of citizenship, Guatemala,
as the country of removal. Therefore, based on the respondent's admissions and
concession, the Court finds that alienage and removability have been established by
clear and convincing evidence as required by Section 240(c)(3) of the INA at U.S.C.
Section 1229A(c)(3). See also 8 C.F.R. Section 1240.B[(a/c)].
At the hearing, the respondent requested a motion to continue in order for
him to be able to pay what he owes his criminal attorney because he was arrested on
September of 2013 for an aggravated DUI. He was sentenced on February 19, 2014.
The OHS stated to the Court that he was sentenced to the Department of Corrections
for 60 days, 125 hours of public service, and 12 months of probation which would be
ending approximately February 2015. The respondent, on the other hand, stated to the
Court that he was arrested for DUI on or about September 2013 and that instead of 60
days at the Department of Corrections, his attorney was able to arrange a plea where
he would complete one month of house arrest still with one-year probation. When
asked if he had completed or satisfied the sentence of the court, the respondent stated
that he had. However, later when the Court advised him of the DHS's statement as to
his conviction on February 19, 2014 1 he then did agree that he is still under probation
and that his case, his criminal case, is still pending. The respondent also stated that he
would like to pay off some debts and wanted to ask the Court for more time to be able to

A205-278-468

November 10, 2014

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

Immigration Court. The Court on its own motion rescheduled the respondent's case for

pay those debts.

The Court finds that respondent's motion to continue is not timely. He is

proceedings with the issuance of the Notice to Appear on September 26, 2012. He has
been in removal proceedings since that period of time. At his first hearing, on October
17, 2012, while he was at the Chicago Detention Center, he requested more time also
to speak to an attorney. He was able to bond out and then continue in the non-detained
court in Chicago on November 14, 2013, where he appeared at 9:00 a.m. He requested
at that time a continuance so that he may speak to an attorney. The Court granted that
continuance for a later date of November 10, 2014 at 1 :00 p.m. at the Chicago
Immigration Court. The Court finds that the respondent has basically been in
proceedings for a period of two years, and the fact that he was arrested and sentenced
and convicted to an aggravated DUI while he was in removal proceedings and would
like time to pay off his criminal attorney does not establish good cause, and, therefore,
the continuance will be denied.
The respondent has not asked for any relief from removal including
voluntary departure. Accordingly:
ORDERS
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent be removed to Guatemala on
the charges of the Notice to Appear.

Please see the next page for electronic

signature

A205-278-468

November 10, 2014

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

requesting it the day of his hearing. The Court finds that the respondent entered into

VIRGINIA PEREZ-GUZMAN
Immigration Judge

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

A205-278-468

November 10, 2014

/Isl/
Immigration Judge VIRGINIA PEREZ-GUZMAN

A205-278-468

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

perezv on February 23, 2015 at 5:32 PM GMT

November 10, 2014