Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals


Office ofthe Clerk

5107 leesburg Pike. Suite 2000


Falls Church, Virginia 22041

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


Hoppock, Matthew Lorn OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - ORL
The Hoppock Law Firm LLC 3535 Lawton Road, Suite 100
10985 Cody Street, Suite 130 Orlando, FL 32803
Overland Park, KS 66210

Name: P -S , O A -565

Date of this notice: 12/6/2017

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

Sincerely,

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For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit


www.irac.net/unpublished/index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: O-P-S-, AXXX XXX 565 (BIA Dec. 6, 2017)


U.S. Department of Justice Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
• Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 2204 l

File: 565 - Orlando, FL Date:


DEC - 6 2017
In re: O P -S

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


IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

MOTION

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Matthew L. Hoppock, Esquire

APPLICATION: Reopening

ORDER:

This case was previously before us on August 1, 2017, when we dismissed the appeal of the
Immigration Judge's decision to deny the motion to reopen proceedings in which the respondent
was ordered removed in absentia. The respondent, a native of Brazil and a citizen of Mexico, filed
this timely motion to reopen on August 9, 2017. The Department of Homeland Security (OHS)
has not replied to the motion. The motion will be granted, and the record will be remanded.

The record shows that the Immigration Judge ordered the respondent removed in absentia on
April 30, 2008. On January 11, 2017, the respondent filed a motion to reopen based on a lack of
notice. The Immigration Judge denied the motion on March 9, 2017, and we dismissed the appeal
of that decision on August 1, 2017.

In the motion, the respondent seeks reopening to pursue adjustment of status under the self­
petitioning provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VA WA).
See sections
204(a)(l)(A)(iii) and 240(c)(7)(C)(iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
§§ l154(a)(l)(A)(iii), 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv) (2012); 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.2(c), 1003.2(c) (2017). In
support of the motion, as well as the waiver of the I-year filing requirement, the respondent has
submitted a copy of the Form 1-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er) or Special Immigrant,
filed with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on December 30, 2016;
evidence of the alleged abuse by the United States citizen spouse; and evidence of the alleged
hardship to his United States citizen child. Respondent's Motion to Reopen, Tabs B, C, D. He
has also provided the notice he received from the USCIS indicating that he had established a prima
facie case under the self-petitioning provisio of the VAWA, which has been extended to
April 11, 2018. Considering these submissions, well as the DHS's lack of response to the
motion, the motion will be granted. Accordingly, th motion to reopen is granted, and the record
is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further pro

Cite as: O-P-S-, AXXX XXX 565 (BIA Dec. 6, 2017)