W-L-A-M-, AXXX XXX 560 (BIA Dec. 23, 2016)

U.S.
Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board ofImmigration Appeals
Qfjice of the Clerk
5107 Leesb11rg Pike. S111te 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - CHL

5701 Executive Ctr Dr., Ste 300
Charlotte, NC 28212
Name:M-W-
A--560
Date of this notice: 12/23/2016
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,
DcrutL C
1/VL)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
O'Herron, Margaret M
Greer, Anne J.
Kendall-Clark, Molly
Userteam: Docket
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
Cite as: W-L-A-M-, AXXX XXX 560 (BIA Dec. 23, 2016)
Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net
Bailey, EarnestN.G.
Bailey & Ryan, PLLC
119 Brookstown Avenue, Suite 300
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
,.
U.S. Departmentof Justice
. Executive Office for Immigration Review
Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
File: 560 - Charlotte, NC
Date:
DEC 2 3 2016
APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Earnest N.G. Bailey, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS: Hilary Rainone
Assistant Chief Counsel
APPLICATION: Continuance
On February 1, 2016, the Immigration Judge denied the respondent's motion for a
continuance and ordered the respondent removed. The respondent has appealed from the
Immigration Judge's order. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has filed a motion
for summary affirmance. The record will be remanded.
We review an Immigration Judge's factual determinations for clear error. See 8 C.F.R.
1003.l(d)(3)(i). We review de novo questions oflaw, discretion, judgment, and all other issues
in appeals from the decisions of Immigration Judges. See 8 C.F .R. 1003.1(d)(3)(ii).
The respondent sought a continuance of removal proceedings to await a decision in State
Court on a child custody order, which she needed to support a Form 1-360 petition for special
immigrant juvenile status. A grant of special immigrant juvenile status would allow her to apply
for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident. See sections 10l(a)(27)(J) and
245(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 110l(a)(27)(J), 1255{h). The
complaint filed in State Court alleged that the respondent's mother abandoned the respondent
and that reunification with the mother was not viable. See section 10l(a)(27)(J) of the Act.
The Immigration Judge denied the respondent's motion for a continuance after concluding
that allegations in the State Court complaint were not true. The Immigration Judge based his
conclusion on inconsistencies between the allegations in the State Court complaint and the Form
1-213 (Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien) that was completed by an immigration officer
at the border when the respondent arrived in the United States. Specifically, the Form 1-213
provided that the respondent's mother resided in Raleigh, North Carolina and had paid a
smuggler to assist the respondent travel to the United States. The Form 1-213 also included a
statement that the respondent anticipated that her mother, who was in Raleigh, would support
her. In contrast, the State Court complaint alleged that the respondent's mother had moved to
California in 2009 or prior to that date, that she had married another man and had two children
with him, and that she did not maintain a parent-child relationship with the respondent once she
moved to California
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
'560
On appeal, the respondent argues that the Immigration Judge should have granted her motion
for a continuance to allow her to pursue special immigrant juvenile status and then adjustment of
status. The respondent also argues that the Immigration Judge did not provide her with a
reasonable opportunity to present her claims.
An Immigration Judge may grant a continuance where good cause is shown. See 8 C.F .R.
1240.6; see also Matter of Rajah, 25 I&N Dec. 127 (BIA 2009); Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N
Dec. 785 (BIA 2009). We agree with the respondent that she was not given the opportunity to
fully present her claim that there was good cause for a continuance. See Matter of E-F-H-L-, 26
I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2014). There was no opportunity for the respondent to challenge the Form
1-213 and she was given no chance to highlight the document's inconsistencies, which she has
done in her appeal brief.
For example, the respondent's parents are initially described as having addresses in
Honduras. Later, the father is reported as living at 3445 Misty River, North Carolina 27610,
while the mother is described as living in Raleigh, North Carolina. Notwithstanding these
addresses, the respondent is reported as saying that the person she is to contact once in the
United States is her father, who is described as living in Raleigh. The Form I-213 additionally
contains conflicting information about which parent arranged for the respondent to be smuggled
into the United States, and the Form 1-213 describes the respondent herself with a male pronoun.
Other concerns about the Form I-213 are that the respondent was unaccompanied and only 14
years old when she provided information to the immigration officer who prepared the form.
Finally, as noted on appeal, the Form I-213 lists a different agent in charge of the
document/information than the EARM database record, even though the EARM database record
was reported at the respondent's hearing as containing the same information as the Form I-213
(Tr. at 8-9).
The Immigration Judge denied the motion for a continuance based on certain statements on
the Form 1-213, but without actually considering the document as a whole or any argument
concerning the document. Nor did the Immigration Judge consider the Form I-830 in the record,
which showed that when the respondent was released from custody, she reported her address as
c/o Armando Alvarado Herrera (Father) at 3613 Flowing Ct. #12, Raleigh, NC 27610. Thus, the
2
When questioned about the inconsistencies, the respondent's counsel explained that he had
investigated the respondent's situation and had learned that the respondent's mother had been in
California for some years and that she had another family there (Tr. at 10). The Immigration
Judge, however, asserted that the respondent's counsel had committed an ethical violation by
filing the State Court complaint and by misleading the State Court judge (Tr. at 11-15). The
Immigration Judge found that the complaint pending in State Court was defective ab initio and
would render any subsequent Form 1-360 petition to be not prima facie approvable (l.J. at 15).
The Immigration Judge inquired as to whether the respondent sought pre-conclusion voluntary
departure or wanted to accept an order of removal (1.J. at 15-16). The respondent declined to
seek voluntary departure, and the Immigration Judge ordered the respondent removed (I.J. at 1617). The respondent then filed her appeal.
..-560
Immigration Judge denied the motion for a continuance without fully considering the record. 1 In
light of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that a remand for additional consideration of
whether the respondent can establish good cause for further continuance of these proceedings to
permit her to pursue special immigrant juvenile status is appropriate.
ORDER: The Immigration Judge's order is vacated.

FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to a different Immigration Judge for further
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new order.
. o
In fact, the Immigration Judge did not issue a decision setting out any reasons for his order.
For purposes of this decision, we rely on the Immigration Judge's statements during the hearing,
as found in the transcript of proceedings.
3
As a final matter, the respondent has raised concerns about the fairness of the proceedings,
which we find supported by the record (Respondent's Br. at 18-23; Tr. at 12-15). See Matter of
Y-S-L-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2015) (providing that all parties should expect dignity, respect,
courtesy, and fairness in immigration proceedings). Accordingly, we find it appropriate to
remand this matter to a different Immigration Judge. See id. at 690-91. However, we express no
opinion concerning the ultimate outcome of this matter.
..
In the Matter of
A
.,
"'.c ..:-
t.
...
,.
':H
IMMIGRATION COURT
5701 EXECUTIVE CENTER DR. #400
CHARLOTTE, NC 28212
560
Case No.:
4IIIIIL
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE
2-}
This is a summary of the oral decision entered on

l fl/}
This memorandum is solely for the convenience of the parties. If the
proceedings should be appealed or reopened, the oral decision will become
the official opinion in the case.
['>(l The respondent was ordered removed from the United States to
HONDURAS e, iu the alteu1a1!ioe to
[ J Repondent's application for voluntary departure was denied and
respondent was ordered removed to HONDURAS or in the
alternative to .
Respondent's application for voluntary departure was granted until
upon posting a bond in the amount of$
with an alternate order of removal to HONDURAS.
Respondent's application for:
[ ] Asylum was ( l granted i )denied( )withdrawn.
)granted ( )denied
)withdrawn.
[ ) Withholding of removal was
was ( )granted ( )denied
)withdrawn.
[ ] A Waiver under Section
)denied
[ ) Cancellation of removal under section 240A(a) was ( }granted
( )withdrawn.
Respondent's application for:
[ ) Cancellation under section 240A(b) (1) was ( ) granted
) denied
( ) withdrawn. If granted, it is ordered that the respondent be issued
all appropriate documents necessary to give effect to this order.
Cancellation under section 240A(b) (2) was { )granted ( )denied
( )withdrawn. If granted it is ordered that the respondent be issued
all appropriated documents necessary to give effect to this order.
Adjustment of Status under Section
was ( )granted ( )denied
( )withdrawn. If granted it is ordered that the respondent be issued
all appropriated documents necessary to give effect to this order.
Respondent's application of (' ) withholding of removal ( ) deferral of
removal under Article III of t'he Convention Against Torture was
( ) granted ( ) denied ( ) withdrawn.
Respondent's status was rescinded under section 246.
Respondent is admitted to the United States as a ___ until
As a condition of admission, respondent is to post a$
bond.
Respondent knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application after proper
notice.
Respondent was advised of the limitation on discretionary relief for
failure to appear as ordered in the Immigration Judge's oral decision.
Proceedi gs ere terrninat ...
Other:
iPtc_
c:::?
([X)J
''
Date: Feb 1, 2016
Appeal: Waiv"E)Appeal Due By:
Respondent

W-L-A-M-, AXXX XXX 560 (BIA Dec. 23, 2016)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

W-L-A-M-, AXXX XXX 560 (BIA Dec. 23, 2016)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

W-L-A-M-, AXXX XXX 560 (BIA Dec. 23, 2016)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.S.

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - CHL

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

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

. Executive Office for Immigration Review

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: 560 - Charlotte, NC

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

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

ORDER: The Immigration Judge's order is vacated.

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

ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

This is a summary of the oral decision entered on

Appeal: Waiv"E)Appeal Due By:

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

You might also like