U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals

Office of the Clerk

5/07 leesburg Pike, Suite 2000

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

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

Hand, Ben Charles DHS/ ICE Office of Chief Counsel -ATL
Hand and Associates 180 Ted Turner Dr., SW, Ste 332
114 North 8th Street Atlanta, GA 30303
Opelika, AL 36801

Name: GODINEZ-PEREZ, ANABELA A 208-202-259

Date of this notice: 1/31/2017

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

Sincerely,

bon,u., {!t1/v'L)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk

Enclosure
Panel Members:
Grant, Edward R.

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/

Cite as: Anabela Godinez-Perez, A208 202 259 (BIA Jan. 31, 2017)
 U.S. Departme.\tt of Justice Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Files: A208 202 259 - Atlanta, GA Date:

JAN 3 1 2017

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

In re: ANABELA GODINEZ-PEREZ

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

APPEAL AND MOTION

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: Ben C. Hand, Jr., Esquire

ON BEHALF OF DHS: Carol D. Riley

Assistant Chief Counsel

APPLICATION: Reopening

The respondents, a mother and her two minor daughters, natives and citizens of Guatemala,
have timely appealed the Immigration Judge's decision dated July 14, 2016, concluding that no
relief had been requested and ordering the respondents removed from the United States. The
Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") has filed a motion for summary affirmance. The
respondents, who were pro se below, are now represented by counsel who has filed a brief on
their behalf. The record will be remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.

At a group hearing held March 17, 2016, the Immigration Judge provided the required
advisals under 8 C.F.R. 1240.10 and gave the respondents a 4 month continuance to obtain
counsel (I.J. at 1-2; Tr. at 13-14). At the July 14, 2016 hearing, the respondents appeared pro se,
stating that they had not hired an attorney because the lead respondent was not working and
therefore had no money (I.J. at 2; Tr. at 15). The Immigration Judge then "allow[ed]" the
respondents to proceed pro se, and established their removability (1.J. at 2; Tr. at 15-17).

The Immigration Judge then asked DHS counsel if she had copies of the Records of
Deportable/Inadmissible Alien (Forms 1-213) for the three respondents (Tr. at 18). A copy of an
I-213 appears in each of the respondent's records of proceeding, but they are not marked with an
exhibit number and therefore were not properly entered into the record (I.J. at 2). Furthermore,
the record is somewhat unclear as to whether copies of the Forms I-213 were actually provided
to the lead respondent (l.J. at 2; Tr. at 18).

The Immigration Judge then asked the lead respondent the purpose of the respondents' trip to
the United States, and concluded that the reasons were economic (I.J. at 2; Tr. at 18). The
Immigration Judge did not directly ask the lead respondent whether she feared returning to
Guatemala (Tr. at 18-19). Instead, the Immigration Judge relied upon the notation contained on
the Form I-213 prepared by DHS, that the lead respondent had claimed no fear of persecution or
torture at the time of her apprehension at the border. The Immigration Judge concluded that
Cite as: Anabela Godinez-Perez, A208 202 259 (BIA Jan. 31, 2017)
.
A208 202 259 et al.

"[t]here is a specific renunciation that there was no fear of persecution or torture if she returned
to her native country of Guatemala [sic]" (I.J. at 2).

On appeal, counsel for the respondents argues that they should have been provided the
opportunity to file an application for asylum and withholding of removal (Form I-589) before the
Immigration Judge, and they attach a completed Form I-589 to their appeal brief. 1 We will

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

construe this as a motion to remand. 8 C.F.R. I003.2(c)(4). Accordingly, in order to preserve
the respondents' right to apply for relief, we will remand these proceedings to the Immigration
Judge to afford the respondents the opportunity to pursue asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture, and any other form of relief for which they are
eligible at that time.2 See generally Matter ofE-F-H-L-, 26 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2014); Matter of
C-B-, 25 I&N Dec. 888 (BIA 2012).

Accordingly, the following order will be entered.

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

1
He argues that alternatively the respondents would be eligible for a favorable exercise of
prosecutorial discretion and administrative closure of proceedings.
2
This should include consideration of whether the respondents are eligible for and wish to
pursue voluntary departure.

2
Cite as: Anabela Godinez-Perez, A208 202 259 (BIA Jan. 31, 2017)
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
ATLANTA, GEORGIA

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

File: A208-202-259 July 14, 2016

In the Matters of

)
ANABELA GODINEZ-PEREZ ) IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
)
)
)
RESPONDENTS )

CHARGE: Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i)

APPLICATION: None.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: PRO SE

ON BEHALF OF OHS: SIRCE ELLIOTT OWEN

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

The respondents are a mother and two daughters, all natives and citizens of

Guatemala who were placed in removal proceedings with the filing of Notices to Appear
with the Court charging removability pursuant to the provisions of 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the
INA. Respondents were personally served the Notice to Appear in October of 2015.
That document notified them of their right to be represented by counsel. They initially

1
resided within the district of New Orleans. New Orleans changed venue to Atlanta.
In March of 2016, four months ago, the Court gave a thorough explanation of

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

rights and continued the case to today's date to give the respondent time to find an
attorney. She was given the pro bono legal services list and explained the individuals

on that list claimed to represent people in this court at a reduced cost. The Court made
no representation that they represented individuals at no cost. On today's date, after

four months, she came back and said that she called the individuals on the list and they

all charged more than she could afford because she is not able to work.
The Court finds she has had adequate time to find an attorney. The right to be
represented by an attorney does not require the Court to indefinitely continue it. The
Court understands the difficulties of an individual without authorization for employment

to come up with finances to hire an attorney. Unfortunately in this area, it does not

appear there are attorneys willing to work on a pro bono basis. That is totally outside
the control of this Court.
Respondent under oath admitted the factual allegations. The Court sustained

the charge of removability in all three cases based on the adult respondent's

admissions. as well as the l-213s.

The Court questioned respondent as to the purpose of coming to the United
States. She specified it was for economic opportunities for her daughters. Specifically,
she had heard that there were more opportunities for her daughters in this country.

Guatemala is a very poor country. There is barely enough to eat and there is limited

drinking water. A review of the 1-213 confirms the fact that the purpose she came to the
country was economic. There is a specific renunciation that there was no fear of
persecution or torture if she returned to her native country of Guatemala.
The Court finds that removability has been established by clear and convincing

A208-202-259/260/261 2 July 14, 2016

evidence. Based on examination of the 1-213, as well as her own testimony, she does
not qualify for any relief that will allow her to remain in the United States.
ORDER

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

Each individual is ordered removed from the United States and returned to
Guatemala on the charge contained in each Notice to appear.

J. DAN PELLETIER
Immigration Judge

A208-202-259/ 3 July 14, 2016