Interim Decision #32I7 

MATTER OF M-PIn Deportation Proceedings 

A-29966235 

Decided by Board April 28, 1994 

When a motion to reopen deportation proceedings is denied, the immigration judge 

must identify and fully explain the reasons for such decision; otherwise, the parties are 

deprived of a fair opportunity to contest the immigration judge's determination on 

appeal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals is unable to meaningfully exercise its 

responsibility of reviewing the decision in light of the arguments advanced on appeal. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Sec. 241(a)(2) [8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)j—Entered without inspection 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Ernesto Varas, Esquire 

I 840 Coral Way, Suite 303 

Miami, Florida 33145 

BY: Dunne, Acting Chairman; Vacca and Heilman, Board Members 

This case is before us on appeal from a decision of the immigration 

judge dated September 12, 1991, denying the respondent's motion to 

reopen his deportation proceedings in order to apply for asylum and 

withholding of deportation. The record will be remanded. 

In tracing the procedural history of this case we note that on May 5, 

1989, an immigration judge granted the respondent's motion to change 

venue in his case from Harlingen, Texas, to Miami, Florida. The 

record reflects that a hearing was conducted on September 26, 1989, in 

Miami, but the respondent did not appear. 

Accordingly, the immigration judge conducted the hearing in absentia 

and issued a decision finding the respondent deportable as charged 

and ordering his deportation to Nicaragua, his country of citizenship. 

No appeal was taken. On August 29, 1991, the respondent filed a 

motion to reopen requesting an opportunity to apply for asylum and 

withholding of deportation. Appended to the motion were a Request 

for Asylum in the United States (Form 1-589) and a number of 

supporting documents. 

In a decision dated September 12, 1991, the immigration judge 

786 
Interim Decision #3217 

denied the motion, merely stating that the motion had been "duly 

considered" and that "no substantial grounds [hadi been advanced to 

warrant its grant." The immigration judge did not provide any further 

explanation or otherwise state the basis for denying the motion. The 

respondent appealed. 

In Matter of Felix, 14 I&N Dec. 143 (BIA 1972), this Board stated: 

A respondent in a deportation proceeding who files a motion and submits the 

required fee is entitled to an adjudication by the tribunal having jurisdiction. The 

decision need not be long or elaborate. However summary, it should state the basis 

for decision sufficiently, so that an appellate tribunal can appraise it. Decisions of 

[immigration judges] on motions in deportation proceedings are appealable to this 

Board .... An alien's right to have this Board on appeal review the adverse decision 

of [an immigration judge] would be rendered nugatory if the [immigration judge] 

were permitted thus summarily to reject his motion without adjudicating it. 

Id. at 144 (footnote omitted); see also Matter of Correa, 19 I&N Dec. 

130 (BIA 1984) (finding decision of immigration judge granting 

motion to reopen by use of a conclusory order to be inadequate where 

reasons for granting such motion were not articulated); Matter of 

Daryoush, 18 I&N Dec. 352 (BIA 1982) (finding decision of district 

director insufficient where it failed to explain reasons for denying a 

request for a reduction in bond even though federal regulations do not 

specifically set forth such a requirement in such circumstances); 8 

C.F.R. § 242.18(a) (1993) (requiring immigration judge to discuss 

evidence pertinent to any application for relief made pursuant to 8 

C.F.R. § 242.17 and to state reasons for granting or denying such 

relief). 

Although the immigration judge in the case before us adjudicated 

the respondent's motion, he did not provide any explanation, however 

brief, of his reasons for doing so. Hence, the respondent is left to 

speculate as to the reasoning employed by the immigration judge in 

reaching his decision. This Board is placed in the same position. Since 

the immigration judge did not articulate the reasons for his decision, it 

is not known whether he denied the motion because it failed to (1) 

reasonably explain the respondent's absence at the hearing conducted 

September 26, 1989; (2) meet the regulatory requirements for reopening; (3) be supported by new evidence not previously available; (4) 

reasonably explain why the respondent did not apply for asylum and 

withholding of deportation in the prior proceedings; (5) establish a 

prima facie case for reopening; or (6) establish that reopening was 

merited as a matter of discretion. See generally 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.2, 3.8(a), 

103.5(a). 242.22 (1993); Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464 (BIA 

1992), and cases cited therein. 

When a motion is denied and the reasons for such denial are either 

unidentified or not fully explained, an alien is deprived of a fair 

787 
Interim Decision #3217 

opportunity to contest that determination on appeal. Similarly, this 

Board is unable to meaningfully fulfill its responsibility of reviewing 

the immigration judge's denial of the motion in light of the arguments 

advanced on appeal. Therefore, we find it appropriate to remand the 

record in the instant case for consideration of the motion and 

preparation by the immigration judge of a decision explaining his 

reasoning. 

Accordingly, the record will be remanded to the immigration judge 

to further consider the motion and enter a new decision which explains 

the reasons for such decision. 

ORDER: The record is remanded to the immigration judge for 

further proceedings in accordance with the foregoing opinion and the 

entry of a new decision. 

788