Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/196758842/Jose-Eustate-A047-128-564-BIA-Dec-20-2013
Timestamp: 2017-09-21 01:40:37
Document Index: 334111322

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1003', '§ 1003', '§ 32', '§ 212', '§ 802', '§ 2', '§ 32', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 212', '§ 1003', '§ 1003', '§ 240', '§ 1003', '§ 1003', '§ 212']

Jose Eustate, A047 128 564 (BIA Dec. 20, 2013) | Removal Proceedings | Common Law
Description: In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded for further consideration of the respondent’s motion to reopen an in absentia removal order in light of evidence submit...
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded for further consideration of the respondent’s motion to reopen an in absentia removal order in light of evidence submitted on appeal indicating that his underlying criminal conviction had been vacated. The decision was written by Member Edward Grant.
Stephen A. Lagana, Esq. Law Offices of Stephen A. Lagana 145 Essex St. Lawrence, MA 01840
Name:EUSTATE, JOSE
A 047-128-564
Date of this notice: 12/20/2013
DCWtL ctl./VL)
5107 leeshurg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 20530
EUSTATE, JOSE A047-128-564 LASALLE PARISH DETENTION CTR 830 PINEHILL ROAD JENA, LA 71342
Name:EUSTATE,JOSE
DorutL ct1IVt)
U.S� Department of Justice
File: A047 128 564 - Boston, MA In re: JOSE EUSTATE IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL AND MOTION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:
DEC 2 0 2013
Stephen A. Lagana, Esquire
The respondent has appealed from the Immigration Judge's decision dated July 16, 2013. The Immigration Judge denied the respondent's motion to reopen proceedings in which he was ordered removed in absentia. On October 28, 2013, the respondent filed a motion to remand. The respondent's motion to remand will be granted. The Board reviews an Immigration Judge's findings of fact, including findings as to the credibility of testimony, under the "clearly erroneous" standard. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.l(d)(3)(i). The Board reviews questions of law, discretion, and judgment and all other issues in appeals from decisions oflmmigration Judges de novo. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.l(d)(3)(ii). In support of his motion to remand, the respondent has presented evidence that his 2005 conviction for the offense of Unlawful Distribution of a Controlled Substance in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 32A(a) was vacated and a "guilty-filed" judgment was entered. Under these circumstances, we find it appropriate to remand the record to the Immigration Judge for consideration of the respondent's evidence relating to the vacation of his conviction and the legal effect of that action. See Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2003) ; Matter of Rodriguez-Ruiz, 22 I&N Dec. 1378 (BIA 2001) (finding significant the distinction between convictions vacated on the basis of a procedural or substantive defect in the underlying proceedings and convictions vacated because of post-conviction events such as rehabilitation or immigration hardships). Accordingly, the following order will be entered. ORDER: The motion to remand is gr ted and proceedings are remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings consistent wt the foregoing decision.
EXECUT IVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS IN THE MATTER OF: EUSTATE, Jose A
047-128-564
Respondent CHARGES:
In Removal Proceedings DETAINED
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or Act)§ 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(H): Alien who has been convicted ot� or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a state, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substanc.e, as defined in section I 02 of the Controlle-d Substances Act (.2.1 u.s.c. § 802).
Alien ·pre.sent in the United 'States \\i : thmn '.being who has a1Tivecl ·in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General.
§ 2'.J 2(a)(6)(A)(i}:
Stephen A. Lagana, Esq. Law Offices of Stephen A. Lagana 145 Essex Street Lawrence, Massachusetts 01840
Assistant Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel JFK Federal Building, Room 425 Boston, Massachusetts 02203
ON RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO REOPEN I. Procedural History
On July 17, 2007, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) served the Respondent, Jose Eustate, with a Notice to Appear (NTA), which alleged that he: (I) is not a citizen or national of the United States; (2) is a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic; (3) was granted lawful permanent residence in the United States on June 4, 1999; (4) was convicted on April 19, 2005, of the offense of Unlawful Distribute Controlled Substance Class B (cocaine), in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C § 32A(a); (5) applied for admission to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on May 22, 2007, at Luis Munoz Marin International Airport in San Juan, Puerto Rico; (6) was parol�d imp the United States at Boston, Massachusetts, on May 22, 2007, for a deferred inspection; (7f did not appear for his scheduled and required deferred inspection on June 21, 2007; (8) and has been present in the United States without admission or
parole after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer. Based on these factual allegations, DHS charged the Respondent as removable pursuant to INA § 2 l 2(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), for a controlled substance offense, and INA § 2 l2(a)(6)(A)(i), as an alien present in the United States without admission or parole. On November 7, 2007, a notice was mailed to the Respondent advising him to appear at the Boston Immigration Court (Court) for a hearing scheduled for December 4, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. Because the Respondent failed to appear for the December 4, 2007, hearing, the Court proceeded with his case in absentia, . OHS filed an I-213 as evidence of the Respondent's removability, and the Court sustained both charges in the NTA. As the Respondent failed to establish good cause for his failure to appear, the Court fow1d that he had abandoned any and all claims for relief from removal. Order of the U (Dec. l 0, 2007). Consequently, the Court ordered the Respondent removed from the United States to the. Dominic.an Republic. Id
II. Respondent's Motion to Reopen
On June 14, 2013, the Respondent, tlu-ough counse.l, filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings. ln his motion, the Respondent contends that DHS improperly charged .the Respondent umfor fNA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) when he was actually paroled into lhe United States on May 22, 2007. See Resp't Memo. of La'rv in Su_pport C)f Mot. to Reopen to Tenninate Removal Proceedings {ihiL '8, 20'13) j(hl�reinafter Resp't Mot. 'to Reopen 'Memo). '.Based on dle Respondent':s assertion that he was paroled into the United States, he argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the removal charge on that ground. Id. Accordingly, the Respondent requests that his case be reopened and terminated with prejudice. Id.
The Immigration Judge may �pon his or her own motion at any time, or upon motion by DHS or the Respondent, reopen an� case in which he or she has made a decision, unless jurisdiction is vested with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board). 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(l) (2013). A motion to reopen shall state the new facts that wil1 be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits and other evidentiary material. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3). Subject to limited exceptions, a party may file only one motion to reopen within ninety days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal. However, an order of removal entered in absentia may be rescinded upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days after the date of the order of removal if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear resulted from exceptional circumstances as defined in section 240(e)(l) of the Act. INA§ 240(b)(5)(C) (2013); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). Alternatively, an order of removal entered in absentia may also be rescinded at any time if the alien demonstrates that he or she did not receive notice of the hearing. Id. While the Court may reopen a case under its sua sponte power, such authority is used sparingly as a general rule; it is not meant to be a "general remedy for any hardships created by enforcement of the time and number limits in the motions regulations, but rather as an
22 I&N Dec. 1132, 1133 (BIA 1999); see also Matter ofJean, 23 I&N Dec. 373, 380 n.9 (A.G. 2002).
extraordinary remedy reserved for truly exceptional situations." Matter of G-D-,
As a general matter, motions to reopen are "disfavored as contrary to 'the compelling public interests in finality and the expeditious processing of proceedings."' Raza
484 F.3d 125, 127 (lst Cir 2007) (quoting Roberts v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 33, 35 (1st Cir 2005)).
Accordingly, there are procedural and substantive bars to reopening removal proceedings. See
627 F.3d 427, 433 (1st Cir. 2010).
ProceduraUy., the Respondent's motion to reopen is untimely and not .sub.iect to an exception. See 8 C.F R. § I003 23(b}(1), (4). The Respondent filed the present motion to reopen on JWle 14, 2013-nearly six years after he was orde red removed and well beyond 180-day deadline specified in the regulations. See 8 C F R § 1003.23(b)(4). The Respondent did not allege that the time limitations are inapplicable due to lack of notice or to changed country
conditions giving rise to a claim for asylum
withholding of removal. Consequently, the Court
finds that the Respondent�s motion to reopen is time�lmrred. ,See 8 CF.R. § l003.23(b){l)t (4). Furthermore, the Re�pondent"s claim also foils substantively, as he has not established a prime1 facie case for '.fhe :rel:ief sc;aght Ol' 'introduced pre·\/iousJy uraavailatJle, materiat evidence,. See id. at 433 '(citing Fesseha v. Asher.oft, 333 F.3d 13, 20 (ht Clr.2003)). l11e Respondent
contends that his proceedings should be reopened and terminated because there was insufficient evidence to find him removable pursuant to section corroborate this assertion. See Jupiter facts).
212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act. See Resp't Mot.
to Reopen Memo. As an initial matter, he did not provide Ashcro ft ,
affidavit or any other evidence to
396 F.3d 487, 491 (1st Cir. 2005) (Counsel's
factual assertions in pleadings or legal memoranda are not evidence and do not establish material Contrary to the Respondent's claims, the record evidence supports the charge of removability. The I-213 indicates that on May 22, 2007, he was paroled into the United States until the date of his deferred inspection on June 2 I, 2007. The Respondent never appeared for his deferred inspection and his status was automatically terminated on that date. See
212.S(e). No written notice terminating his parole status was required. Id 2 1 2(a)(6)(A)(i) was in .,its initial decision, the Court also found the Respondent removable pursuant to INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). Thus, even if one of the removal charges
Moreover, should not have been sustained, the Respondent remained removable on other grounds. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Respondent has not established that his proceedings should be reopened and terminated. Due to the Respondent's lack of di1igence and failure to demonstrate a prima facie case for any relief from removal, the Court also finds that reopening his removal proceedings sua The Court finds no basis to conclude that the charge under INA §
erroneously sustained.
sponte is not warranted. See Matter of Bec/iford, 22 I&N Dec. 1216 (BIA 2000); Matter o fJ-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 976 (BIA 1997). When the Respondent was paroled into the United States, he had notice of his deferred inspection date but failed to appear. He offered no explanation for his absence or his failure to reschedule his inspection. Nor did he provide reasons why he failed to
attend hi s r emo val hearin g .
Further, the Respondent did not request �y viable
from removal, no affidavit or a pplications were submitted, and there is no evidence that he is eligible for any re1ief. Before exerc\�ing sua sponte authority, the Court mus t be persuaded that the Respondent's situation is "truly exce pt ional ." denied and the following order shall be entered: ORDER
Matter of G-D-, 22 I&N
Bec ause the Respondent has not established such a s ituation in this case, his motion to reopen is
7/ 1C (13
Documents Similar To Jose Eustate, A047 128 564 (BIA Dec. 20, 2013)
Salvador Gonzales Diaz, A030 105 700 (BIA March 28, 2011)