Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/203257950/Glorofer-Angelica-Nufable-Villatuya-A089-445-773-BIA-Jan-23-2014
Timestamp: 2015-11-27 15:25:47
Document Index: 769945113

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 216', '§ 240', '§ 240', '§ 240', '§ 240', '§ 1003', '§ 240']

P. 1Glorofer Angelica Nufable Villatuya, A089 445 773 (BIA Jan. 23, 2014)Glorofer Angelica Nufable Villatuya, A089 445 773 (BIA Jan. 23, 2014)|Views: 542|Likes: 0Published by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCIn this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rescinded an order of removal issued in absentia upon finding ineffective assistance of the respondent’s prior counsel contributed to his failure to appear at his removal proceeding. The decision was written by Member Sharon Hoffman and joined by Vice Chairman Charles Adkins-Blanch and Member Elise Manuel. In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rescinded an order of removal issued in absentia upon finding ineffective assistance of the respondent’s prior counsel contributed to his failure to appear at his removal proceeding. The decision was written by Member Sharon Hoffman and joined by Vice Chairman Charles Adkins-Blanch and Member Elise Manuel. More info:Categories:Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on Jan 29, 2014Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/203257950/Glorofer-Angelica-Nufable-Villatuya-A089-445-773-BIA-Jan-23-201403/15/2014pdftextoriginalRobert West, Esq.Law Ofice of Robert West P.O. Box 50390 Henderson, NV 89016 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Offce fr Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Ofce of the Clerk JJJ¯Ìccsburgíl8c. óuilc2JJJ
ÍoÍ/ãChurch, I/rglnío 2JJJJ
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel - LVG 3373 Pepper Lane Las Vegas, NV 8912
0 Name: VILLATUYA, GLOROFER ANGE ... A 089-445-773 Date of this notice: 1/2
014 Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case. Enclosure Panel Members: Adkins-Blanch, Charles K. Hofman, Sharon Manuel. Elise Sincerely, DO c t Donna Carr Chief Clerk yungc Userteam: Docket For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
Cite as: Glorofer Angelica Nufable Villatuya, A089 445 773 (BIA Jan. 23, 2014)
. U.S. Department of Justice � Executive Ofce fr Imigration Review Decision of te Board of Imigration Appeals Falls Church, Virgina 20530 File: A089 445 773 - Las Vega, NV Date: I re: GLOROFER ANGELICA NUF ABLE VILLA TUY A IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Robet West, Esquire ON BEHALF OF OHS: APPLICATION: Reopening Chistia Pake Assistat Chief Counsel JAN 2 3 2014 The respondent, a natve ad citizen of te Philippines who was ordered removed fom te United States in absentia on Jauary 6, 2012, appeas the decision of the I igaton Judge, dated May 11, 2012, denying he motion to reopen. Te Departent of Homelad Security is opposed to te respondent's appeal. The Immigation Judge properly denied the respondent's motion to reopen. As recogized by the respondent on appeal, te motion, which was prepared by her fre counsel, lacked met. Nonetheless, as te respondent has sought new counsel in a diligent maner, fled a complaint aganst her frer counsel, ad established that her frmer counsel's inefective assistace of counsel contibuted to her filure to appea at her removal heang, we ae satisfed that the respondent ha now presented sufcient evidence to establish that the order of removal entered against he should be rescinded. See section 240(b)(S)(C)(i) of te Immigaton ad Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 229a(b )(5)(C)(i); Mater of Lozada, 19 l&N Dec. 637 (I 1988). Accordingly, we will reopen tese proceedings in order to provide the respondent wit a additional opportnity to appea fr a removal heang. The fllowing order is enteed. ORDER: Te in absentia order of removal entered on Jauay 6, 2012, is rescinded, tese removal proceedings ae reopeed, ad te record is remaded to the Immigation Court fr fher proceedings consistet with the fregoing opinion and fr the enty of a new decision. I
: . }, :.,·: �=�
+ ¯ ·--� ··
-.� UITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRTION COUT MONTOYA, VICENTA, ESQ. 330 E. CLESTON, STE. 200 LAS VGAS, N 89104 3365 PEPPER LE, SUITE 200 LAS VEGAS, N 89120 Date: May 11, 2012 File A089-445-773 In the Matter of: VILLATUYA, GLOROFER AGELICA NUFABLE � Attached is a copy of the written decision of the Immigration Judge. This decision is final unless an appeal is taken to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The enclosed copies of FORM EOIR 26, Notice of Appeal, and FORM EOIR 27, Notice of Entry as Attorney or Representative, properly executed, must be filed with the Board of Immigration Appeals on or before The appeal must be accompanied by proof of paid fee ($110.00). Enclosed is a copy of the oral decision. Enclosed is a transcript of the testimony of record. You are granted until to submit a brief to this office in support of your appeal. Opposing counsel is granted until brief in opposition to the appeal. t9 submit a Enclosed is a copy of the order/decision of the Immigration Judge. All papers filed with the Court shall be accompanied by proof of service upon opposing counsel. cc: CHRISTIA PAKE, ESQUIRE 3373 .PEPPER LAE, STE. 200 LAS VEGAS, N 89120 Sincerely, Immigration Court Clerk UL I I I
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRATION COURT 3365 Pepper Lane, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 IN THE MATTER OF: VILLA TUY A, Glorofer Angelica Respondent On Behalf of the Respondent Vicenta E. Montoya, Esq. 330 East Chaleston Boulevard Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89104 In Removal Proceedings File No.: A089-445-773 Date: May 11, 2012 On Behalf of DHS Christian Parke Immigration and Customs Enfrcement Department of Homeland Security 3373 Pepper Lane Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION COURT I. BACKGROUND The respondent is a 44-year-old fmale, native and citizen of the Phillippines. She was admited to the United States at Las Vegas, Nevada on September 16, 2006 pursuant to a nonimmigrant B-1 visitor fr business visa with authorization to remain until November 3, 2006. (Ex. 1.) On September 20, 2007 the respondent was granted conditional permanent resident status fr two yeas. (Exs. 1, 5.) On August 20, 2010 the Deparment of Homeland Securty (DHS) issued U Notice to Appear (NTA) chaging the respondent with removabilit pursuant to section 237(a)(l )(D)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (IA), as amended, as an alien whose lawfl admission as a conditional resident had been terminated under INA § 216. (Ex. 1.) At a master hearing convened on November 4, 2010 the respondent admitted NT A fctual allegations 1, 2, 3, and 4; denied fctal allegation 5; and denied the charge of removability. The Immigration Cour then scheduled a individual hearing fr Januar 6, 2012 to resolve the contested charge of removability. The respondent and her attorey of record, Vicenta Montoya, personally were served with the witten notice of this hearing in Immigration Cour the same day. (Ex. 4) I
VILLA TUY A, Glorofer Angelica A089-445-773 On Januay 6, 2012 the scheduled master heaing was convened. The respondent was not present at te hearing. Ms. Montoya appeared, but was unable to ofer an explanation fr the .
spondent's absence. Ms. Montoya then moved to continue this hearing. The Immigration Cour d
etermined good cause had not been presented to justif a continuance and denied the motion. DHS t
hen moved to conduct the removal hearing in absentia, which motion was ganted fr good cause show. DHS next sought to amend NTA fctual allegation 5, without objection by the respondent's counsel. Therefre, te Immigration Court granted the motion to amend. Based on te evidence presented te Immigration Cour next sustained all fctual allegations as well as the charge of removability. On this basis te respondent was ordered removed in absentia fom the United States to te Philippines. More recently on February 6, 2012, the respondent fled a motion to reopen. In this motion the respondent seeks reopening of her removal proceeding because of a claim she filed to attend the Januay 6, 2012 heaing when mistakenly anticipating this hearing was scheduled fr January 12, 2012. In support of the motion to reopen, the respondent has fled her declaration explaining the mistake. The respondent also has fled an employee written request fr excused absence fom employment fr Januar 12, 2012. DHS fled a written opposition to reopening on February 7, 2012. Therein DHS argues the respondent has filed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances tat justif te reopening of her removal proceeding. II. ANALYSIS Notably, the respondent does not dispute that she received proper notice of her January 6, 2012 hearing in Immigration Cour. See INA § 240(b)(5)(C)(ii) (an in absentia removal order may be rescinded "baed upon a motion to reopen fled at any time if the alien demonstrates tat the alien did not receive notice ... ");see also Khan V. Ashcrof, 374 F.3d 825, 828 (9th Cir. 2004) ("Actual notice is .. . sufcient to meet due process requirements."). Were notice of the heaing at issue was proper, an in absentia removal order may be rescinded based on "a motion to reopen fled within 180 days afer te date of the order of removal if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances (as defned in subsection (e)(l ))." INA § 240(b)(5)(C)(i). "Exceptional circumstances," fr purposes of rescinding an in absentia removal order, refrs to events "beyond the control of te alien" such as "batter or extreme cruelty to the alien or any child or paent of the alien, serious illness of the alien, or serious illness or death of the spouse, child, or paent of the alien, but not including less compelling circumstances." INA § 240(e)(l) (emphasis added). The standard fr exceptional circumstances is stringent, both in ters of the degee of 1 NT A fctual allegation 5 originally alleged: "Your status was teninated on September 20, 2000 because you failed to establish your mariage to Eusebio Villatuya was entered into in good fith." (Ex. 1.) This allegation was amended to read: "Your status was teninated on April 29, 2010." (See Immigration Judge's handwritten alterations tt' Ex. 1.). 2 I
VILLA TU A, Glorof er Angelica A089-445-773 severit required ad also te proof required to establish the contention. See, e.g., Matter of B-A-S-, 22 I& N Dec. 57, 58-59 (BIA 1998); Sharma V. INS, 89 F.3d 545, 547 (9th Cir. 1996) (fnding v�hicle trafc diffculties did not qualif as an exceptional circumstance justifing reopening). The respondent's motion to reopen was fled timely wit the Immigration Court. Still, she has filed to demonstate a circumstance suffcient to justif her filure to appear at the January 6, �012. Though the respondent has explained that she believed her January 6, 2012 hearing was scheduled fr Jauary 12, 2012, this personal confsion apparently existed despite the fct that she a. nd her atorey were provided verbal and written notice of the January 6, 2012 hearing date. Such an explanation does not rise to the level of a compelling circumstance beyond the control of the respondent as required by INA § 240(e)(l ). See Valencia-Fragoso V. /S, 321F.3d1204, 1205 (9th Cir. 2003) (alien's failure to appear based on alleged misuderstanding of time of heaing did not constitute exceptional circumstance justifing reopening). Consequently, the Immigration Cou concludes the respondent has failed to establish her filure to appear on Janua 6, 2012 was the result of an exceptional circumstance that warants rescinding the in absentia order of removal to reopen this removal proceeding. Another relevat consideration concers the respondent's claim in the motion to reopen of eligibilit to obtain removal of the condition on her resident status by meas of a Form I-751. But, the respondent's previous Form 1-751 was denied by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (SCIS) based on a failure to establish her marriage to Eusebio Villatuya was bona fde. (Ex. 5.) The record of proceedings fher indicates that the respondent previously provided the Immigation Court minimal documentation when attempting to demonstrate the bona tdes of her mariage of nearly fur years to Eusebio Villatuya. In connection with the motion to reopen the Immigration Court has not received additional documentation demonstrating either the bona tdes of her ongoing mariage or eligibility fr any other relief fom removal. Thus, the respondent has not persuaded that denial of her motion to reopen would produce the "unconscionable result" of removal despite a valid claim fr relief Singh V. INS, 295 F .3d 103 7, 1040 (9th Cir. 2002) (the agency "should not deny reopening of an in absentia deportation order where the denia leads to the unconscionable result of deporing Ü individual eligible fr relief fom deporation"). Finally, the Immigration Cour recognizes that the respondent has not presented "truly exceptional circumstances" justifing the "extraordinary remedy" represented by the Immigation Court's discretionar authority to reopen a deportation proceeding sua sponte under 8 C.F.R. § 1003 .23(b ). See Matter of G-D-, 22 I&N Dec. 1132, 1134 (BIA 1999) (denying sua sponte reopening without considering the alien's eligibility to receive relief fom removal); Matter of J-J-, l&N Dec. 976, 984 (BIA 1997) (the power to reopen sua sponte is not meant to cure fling defcts or circumvent regulations simply because hardship might otherwise occur); but see Matter of X-G-W-, 22 I&N Dec. 71 (BIA 1998) (sua sponte reopening was waranted where there was a fdamental change in the principles of asylum law). 3 I
VILLATUY A, Glorofer Angelica III. CONCLUSION A089-445-773 Based on the fregoing, the Immigration Court concludes the respondent has filed to demonstrate tat her filure to appear at the hearing on Jauar 6, 2012 was caused by exceptional circumstces. IA § 240( e )( 1 ). The Immigration Court likewise concludes that the respondent has filed to demonstate the truly exceptional circumstances necessary to warrant the Immigation Court reopening proceedings sua sponte. Accordingly, the fllowing order shall be entered: IT IS HEREBY ORDERD that the respondent's motion to reopen be DENIED. Ronald L. Mullins Immigration Judge CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE SERVICE BY: Mail (M) Personal Service (P) TO: "DHS [ ] Alien lAlien's Attorey DATE: M' \\) OO\d BY: Court Staf 4 I
RecommendedJorge Eduardo Araiza, A201 221 422 (BIA Aug. 12, 2013)Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center,...In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reopened...Xingchen Ye, A078 694 496 (BIA Nov. 8, 2013)Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center,...In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded...Estella Ibonne Arrendono, A200 760 314 (BIA Feb. 9, 2015)Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center,...In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) sustaine...Daniel Alberto Velasquez-Mejia, A078 972 091 (BIA July 15, 2015)Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center,...In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rescinde...Ricardo de Hoyos-Neaves, A205 955 704 (BIA March 19, 2015)Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center,...In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rescinde...Previous|NextPage 1 of 2Similar to Glorofer Angelica Nufable Villatuya, A089 445 773 (BIA Jan. 23, 2014)Jorge Eduardo Araiza, A201 221 422 (BIA Aug. 12, 2013)Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCJorge Eduardo Araiza, A201 221 422 (BIA Aug. 12, 2013)Xingchen Ye, A078 694 496 (BIA Nov. 8, 2013)Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCXingchen Ye, A078 694 496 (BIA Nov. 8, 2013)Estella Ibonne Arrendono, A200 760 314 (BIA Feb. 9, 2015)Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCEstella Ibonne Arrendono, A200 760 314 (BIA Feb. 9, 2015)Daniel Alberto Velasquez-Mejia, A078 972 091 (BIA July 15, 2015)Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCDaniel Alberto Velasquez-Mejia, A078 972 091 (BIA July 15, 2015)Ricardo de Hoyos-Neaves, A205 955 704 (BIA March 19, 2015)Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCRicardo de Hoyos-Neaves, A205 955 704 (BIA March 19, 2015)