Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/214862114/Dashnor-Norra-A088-207-785-BIA-Mar-21-2014
Timestamp: 2018-10-20 13:27:35
Document Index: 225423518

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1227', '§ 1255', '§ 1245', '§ 1240', '§ 1245', '§ 1245', '§ 1245']

In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed the denial of the respondents’ applications for adjustment of status upon finding they did not fail to maintain …Full description
U.S. D�partment of Justice
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: Michael P. DiRaimondo, Esquire ON BEHALF OF DHS: Timothy P. McDonald Assistant Chief Counsel CHARGE: Notice: Sec. 237(a){l){B), l&N Act [8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(l)(B)] In the United States in violation of law (both respondents)
The respondents appeal the Immigration Judge's October 14, 2011, decision denying their applications for adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). The record will be remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and for entry of a new decision. The only issue in this appeal is whether the respondent's failed to maintain "lawful status" such that they are not eligible for adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Act. Specifically, the record reflects that the respondents filed for extensions of their nonimmigrant visas on October 25, 2005; the visas were set to expire on November 6, 2005 (Exh. 4). The respondents contend that, despite their diligence in checking the status of their extension requests, they did not receive an approval notice from the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") until March 2009 (Exh. 4). The approval notice was back-dated as to be valid through May 2006 but no longer (Exh. 4). The DHS, which has denied the respondents' applications for adjustment of status due to their "unlawful presence" after the expiration of their visa extension, contends that an original approval notice was sent to the respondents in January 2006 and that they fell out of status in May 2006 rendering them ineligible for adjustment of status for which they applied on June 29, 2007. In his decision, the Immigration Judge found that, even if the respondents' extension requests had been approved in March 2009 and not before, they were still only valid through May 2006 (I.J. at 5). As such, the Immigration Judge determined that the respondents were out of status longer than 180 days prior to filing their adjustment of status applications in June 2007 such that they are not eligible for adjustment of status under section 245( a) of the Act (LJ. at 6-7).
On appeal, the respondents maintain that, because their extension applications were pending until March 2009, they should be deemed to have maintained "lawful status" during that period and prior to filing their adjustment of status applications in June 2007. Specifically, the respondents argue that they accrued no "unlawful status" during the pendency of their applications for an extension of nonimmigrant status because the DHS delay in adjudication occurred through "no fault of [their] own or for technical reasons." See section 245(c)(2) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 1245.l(d)(2)(ii) (2013). In addition, the respondents cite to a Memorandum from Michael A. Pearson, Executive Associate Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, Section 222(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) {IN-0014) (March 3, 2000), to support their assertions in this regard. It is the respondents' burden to establish eligibility for relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d). The respondents seek adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Act as employment-based applicants. In order to be eligible, the respondents must demonstrate the inapplicability of the statutory bars at section 245(c) of the Act to their applications, three of which are particular to employment-based adjustment applicants: sections 245(c)(2), (7), and (8). See also 8 C.F.R. § § 1245.l(b){2), (5), (6), (9), and (10). The limitation at issue in this case provides in relevant part: [S]ubsection (a) shall not be applicable to . .. (2) subject to subsection (k), an alien (other than an immediate relative as defined in section 201(b) or a special immigrant described in section 10l(a)(27)(H), (I), (J), or (K)) who hereafter continues in or accepts unauthorized employment prior to filing an application for adjustment of status or who is in unlawful immigration status on the date of filing the application for adjustment of status or who has failed (other than through no fault of his own or for technical reasons) to maintain continuously a lawful status since entry into the United States. Section 245(c)(2) of the Act. The regulations define the phrase "other than through no fault of his or her own or for technical reasons," explicitly limiting the meaning of that phrase to four scenarios. 8 C.F.R. § 1245.l(d)(2). The respondents rely on the definition: "[a] technical violation resulting from inaction of the Service (as for example, where an applicant establishes that he or she properly filed a timely request to maintain status and the Service has not yet acted on that request)." 8 C.F.R. § 1245.l(d)(2}(ii). Section 245(k) of the Act permits certain employment-based adjustment applicants to adjust although otherwise barred from adjustment of status under sections 245(c )(2), (7), and (8). The statute provides in pertinent part:
And there is nothing in the record to indicate to the Court that additional requests were made to further extend that timeframe, such as to provide that Respondents would· have in fact have still been in with a lawful status.
Documents Similar To Dashnor Norra, A088 207 785 (BIA Mar. 21, 2014)