Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/192340198/Victor-Rosel-A098-194-325-BIA-Dec-9-2013
Timestamp: 2017-02-24 17:17:53
Document Index: 50412974

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1227', '§ 1227', '§ 1003', '§ 1227', '§ 1229', '§ 1240', '§ 1240', '§ 1003']

5107 Lee�burg Pike, Suile 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 20530
Simpson, Benjamin Lyle Cohen & Forman, LLP. 40 Fulton Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10038
Name: ROSEL, VICTOR
A 098-194-325
Date of this notice: 12/9/2013
borutL {!t1IVt)
ROSEL, VICTOR A098-194-325 ETOWAH COUNTY DETENTION CENTER 827 FORREST AVENUE GADSDEN, AL 35901
a courtesy. Your attorney or representative has been served with this If the attached decision orders that you be
DcnrtL t!tVvV
. U.S. Department of Justice Exec_utive Of!ice for Immigration Review
File: A098 194 325 - New York, NY
re: VICTOR ROSEL a.k.a. Victor Rosel Santos
APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: CHARGE: Notice: Sec. 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)] Convicted of aggravated felony 237(a)(2)(B)(i), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i)] Convicted of controlled substance violation Benjamin L. Simpson, Esquire
The respondent, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2009, appeals the decision of the Immigration Judge, dated July 17, 2013, ordering his removal from the United States. We will dismiss the respondent's appeal. We review Immigration Judges' findings of fact for clear error, but questions of law, discretion, and judgment, and all other issues in appeals, de novo. 8 C.F.R. § 1003 .1 (d)(3). We affirm the Immigration Judge's decision to order the respondent's removal from the United States. The Immigration Judge properly concluded that the respondent is subject to removal from the United States under the provisions of sections 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), (B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), (B) (i), as a result of his August 2012 New York state conviction for Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance (Cocaine) with Intent to Sell (I.J. at 1-3; Exh. 1; Tr. at 13). As recognized by the Immigration Judge, the respondent's argument that his conviction does not constitute a conviction for a drug trafficking aggravated felony because New York's definition of "sell" includes offering to give a controlled substance has recently been rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (I.J. at 3). Pascual v. Holder, 723 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013). Moreover, despite the respondent's claims that his· criminal defense counsel provided him with ineffective assistance of counsel, it is well-established that an alien may not collaterally attack a conviction in removal proceedings. See, e.g., Higgins v. Holder, 677 F.3d 97, 106-07 (2d Cir. 2012); Varughese v. Holder, 629 F.3d 272, 275 n. 3 (2d Cir. 2010); Lanferman v. BIA, 576 F.3d 84, 88 (2d Cir. 2009); Matter of Cuellar, 25 I&N Dec. 850, 855 (BIA 2012); Matter of Madrigal, 21 I&N Dec. 323, 327 (BIA 1996). As such, in the absence of evidence that his conviction has been vacated or modified, his conviction remains a valid predicate upon which he can be removed from this country.
A098 194 325 , As the respondent is subject to removal from the United States, it is his burden to establish eligibility for relief from removal. Section 240(c)(4)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.S(d). However, the respondent has not filed an application for any form of relief from removal which can be granted by an Immigration Judge or this Board. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.l(a)(l} (enumerating many of the forms of relief from removal which can be granted by an Immigration Judge). The respondent's desire to seek post-conviction relief with the New York courts did not amount to "good cause" for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.29 1240.6. The respondent's request for a continuance was explicitly opposed by the Department of Homeland Security (I.J. at 3; Tr. at 40). Moreover, even though the respondent had presented evidence that he had filed a motion with the New York courts to vacate his conviction, he did not present any evidence that such motion would be adjudicated in the foreseeable future (I.J. at 3). See Matter ofRamirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980) (holding that the statements of counsel are not evidence). Additionally, the respondent was granted continuances on May 17, 2013 (Tr. at 7), May 31, 2013 (Tr. at 18), and June 19, 2013 (Tr. at 26).1 Overall, considering these factors, as . well as the speculative nature of the outcome of the nature of post-conviction proceedings, we agree with the Immigration Judge's decision to deny the respondent's request for a continuance. The respondent has also not established that he was prejudiced by the Immigration Judge's decision to deny his request for a continuance. Matter of Sibrun, 18 I&N Dec. 354 (BIA 1983). Now, more than 4 months after the Immigration Judge entered a removal order on July 17, 2013, the respondent has yet to present ·evidence that his motion for post-conviction relief has been adjudicated in his favor or that said motion has been scheduled to be adjudicated in the near future. See Matter of Cerna, 20 I&N Dec. 399, 403 (BIA 1991) (noting that we are not favorably disposed to the practice of waiting until the conclusion of the administrative appeal process to file a motion that seeks to offer additional evidence regarding the matter previously in issue). Accordingly, we will not disturb the Immigration Judge's decision to order the respondent's removal from the United States to the Dominican Republic on the basis of the charges set forth in the Notice to Appear. The following order is entered. ORDER: The respondent's appeal is dismissed.
1 On July 9, 2013, the Immigration Judge continued these proceedings upon her own motion (Tr. at 29-30).
File: A098-194-325 In the Matter of
VICTOR ROSEL RESPONDENT
Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237(a)(2)(B)(i). Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii).
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: CORY FORMAN Cohen and Forman, LLP 40 Fulton Street New York, New York 10038 ON BEHALF OF OHS: SUSAN M. BESCHTA Assistant Chief Counsel New York District
ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE The respondent is a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic who was admitted to permanent residence in the United States on November 9, 2009. The respondent was placed in removal proceedings by issuance of the Notice to Appear
dated February 27, 2013, served April 29, 2013, charging the respondent with removability under Section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, and under 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), based on 101(a)(43)(8) of the Act. Exhibit 1. In proceedings before the Court the respondent admitted the first three factual
allegations, denied allegation 4, which was found by the Court based upon Exhibit 2, the respondent's visa face, and denied allegation 5, which was found by the Court based on Exhibit 3, a conviction from the New York State Supreme Court, State of New York, New York County, on August 27, 2012, when the respondent, pursuant to a plea, was found guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree under Section 220.16(01). Sub 01, of 220.16, specifically requires that it is possession with intent to sell, and the respondent has challenged that the sufficiency of this based upon what he claims were Constitutional defects with regard to his plea, and as to advisals given to him with regard to the consequences of his plea on his Immigration status in the United States, or more specifically that he was not fully advised of the potential consequences. The Court has considered briefing from both sides on this issue, and the Court has made a ruling today denying the motion to terminate. Briefly stated, it is denied for two reasons. First, because this Court does not sit Qn sit on Constitutional issues jurisdictionally, I do not believe I have the authority to consider the Constitutional argument as to the defects of the actions in State Court, that the conviction remains final until such time as it may be vacated by a court of adequate jurisdiction, and therefore, I rule that Exhibit 3 was admissible, and then went onto the issue of what it proves. There is, I believe, no significant contest to the fact that if it is not Constitutionally defective the certificate of disposition would unquestionably render the respondent removable for a violation of the controlled substances laws under
A098-194-325
237(a)(2)(B)(i). Under law of the Circuit, most specifically Pascual v. Holder, which has two recent decisions, both to the same effect, 707 F.3d 403 at 405 (2d. Cir. 2013) and also a second decision issued by the Court on July 8, 2013, to the same effect, namely that a possession with intent to sell is in fact a distribution crime. It is, therefore, a
trafficking crime and therefore renders the respondent amenable to the aggravated felony under 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) as defined in 10 1(a)(43)(B) of the Act. The Court having denied the motion to terminate as further stated in my decision, the respondent makes no other applications other than a request for a continuance. Although counsel has represented to the Court that there is a pending 440 motion in the State Criminal Court, it has not been scheduled as of this date, despite the fact it has been pending for at least a month. The request is to adjourn this case for adjudicate that motion. For all the reasons stated by the Board with regard to collateral attacks and the fact that it is not presently scheduled, along with the opposition of the Department of Homeland Security, the Court declines to exercise its jurisdiction in granting that adjournment because there is no certainty that it will not be of an unlimited nature. This case therefore, unfortunately, goes forward with no relief being filed to the credit of the respondent not filing a frivolous application merely to gain time in the Court. But the respondent, of course, is reserving his right to appeal so that he may pursue the collateral relief, to which he is certainly entitled to do. Therefore, the Court today enters the following order.
ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the respondent is ordered removed from the United States to the Dominican Republic.
�I {'
Immigration Judge NOEL A. ferrisn on October 1, FERRIS 12:15 PM GMT
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulVictor Rosel, A098 194 325 (BIA Dec. 9, 2013) by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionIn this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld a finding that New York criminal possession of controlled substance with intent to sell is a drug trafficking aggravated ...In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld a finding that New York criminal possession of controlled substance with intent to sell is a drug trafficking aggravated felony under Pascual v. Holder, 723 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013). The Board also found good cause did not exist for a continuance because the respondent did not present evidence that his motion for post-conviction relief "would be adjudicated in the foreseeable future." The decision was written by Member Edward Grant.Interests: Types, Government & PoliticsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedLindon Ingram, A055 557 778 (BIA Jan. 21, 2011)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCLeonel Amador Aguilar-Morales, A088 091 744 (BIA Dec. 6, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCEsteban Nolasco-Gaspar, A201 145 750 (BIA Nov. 29, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCRut Betania Castillo de Figueroa, A095 982 111 (BIA Dec. 11, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCJose H. Hernandez, A094 054 192 (BIA Nov. 25, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCRoderick Gary Levy, A035 954 926 (BIA June 27, 2011)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCVictor Enrique Tally-Barrios, A041 736 376 (BIA Oct. 8, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCMerton David Lopez, A091 085 417 (BIA Dec. 13, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCMichael Mutukwa, A099 395 254 (BIA Oct. 25, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCIreneusz Fraczek, A030 973 737 (BIA May 9, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCHiliario Cisneros-Sanchez, A079 791 113 (BIA Nov. 13, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCJose Manuel Isabel Diaz, A205 500 422 (BIA Dec. 30, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCRoldimy Montinar, A025 454 851 (BIA June 13, 2014)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCAlejandro Perez-Serrano, A205 394 591 (BIA Sept. 17, 2014)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCFrancisco Flores Alcala, A200 762 691 (BIA May 9, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCAli Mahmoud Ibrahim Ibrahim, A089 276 533 (BIA Jan. 24, 2014)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCJuan Quiroga-Briones, A028 323 575 (BIA Dec. 3, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCOmar Malleh Boye, A093 429 545 (BIA Jan. 8, 2014)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCDeborah Ann Romero, A017 176 264 (BIA June 10, 2014)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCSalvador Espinoza Gonzalez, A021 576 036 (BIA Dec. 13, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCMartin Gerardo Velasco-Garcia, A089 850 114 (BIA Nov. 14, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCEsau Lara, A097 322 982 (BIA Dec. 16, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCMickael Christian Martin, A076 549 309 (BIA Dec. 27, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCDieuvu Forvilus, A071 552 965 (BIA Jan. 28, 2014)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCXingchen Ye, A078 694 496 (BIA Nov. 8, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCJose Antonio Monjazar-Fernandez, A200 611 977 (BIA Nov. 13, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCJacinto Moises Carbonell-Desliz, A074 054 226 (BIA Jan. 13, 2014)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCRicardo Mata-Rosas, A076 404 712 (BIA April 20, 2011)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCSimilar to Victor Rosel, A098 194 325 (BIA Dec. 9, 2013)Skip carouselLindon Ingram, A055 557 778 (BIA Jan. 21, 2011)Leonel Amador Aguilar-Morales, A088 091 744 (BIA Dec. 6, 2013)Esteban Nolasco-Gaspar, A201 145 750 (BIA Nov. 29, 2013)Rut Betania Castillo de Figueroa, A095 982 111 (BIA Dec. 11, 2013)Jose H. Hernandez, A094 054 192 (BIA Nov. 25, 2013)Roderick Gary Levy, A035 954 926 (BIA June 27, 2011)Victor Enrique Tally-Barrios, A041 736 376 (BIA Oct. 8, 2013)Merton David Lopez, A091 085 417 (BIA Dec. 13, 2013)Michael Mutukwa, A099 395 254 (BIA Oct. 25, 2013)Ireneusz Fraczek, A030 973 737 (BIA May 9, 2013)Hiliario Cisneros-Sanchez, A079 791 113 (BIA Nov. 13, 2013)Jose Manuel Isabel Diaz, A205 500 422 (BIA Dec. 30, 2013)Roldimy Montinar, A025 454 851 (BIA June 13, 2014)Alejandro Perez-Serrano, A205 394 591 (BIA Sept. 17, 2014)Francisco Flores Alcala, A200 762 691 (BIA May 9, 2013)Ali Mahmoud Ibrahim Ibrahim, A089 276 533 (BIA Jan. 24, 2014)Juan Quiroga-Briones, A028 323 575 (BIA Dec. 3, 2013)Omar Malleh Boye, A093 429 545 (BIA Jan. 8, 2014)Deborah Ann Romero, A017 176 264 (BIA June 10, 2014)Salvador Espinoza Gonzalez, A021 576 036 (BIA Dec. 13, 2013)Martin Gerardo Velasco-Garcia, A089 850 114 (BIA Nov. 14, 2013)Esau Lara, A097 322 982 (BIA Dec. 16, 2013)Mickael Christian Martin, A076 549 309 (BIA Dec. 27, 2013)Dieuvu Forvilus, A071 552 965 (BIA Jan. 28, 2014)Xingchen Ye, A078 694 496 (BIA Nov. 8, 2013)Jose Antonio Monjazar-Fernandez, A200 611 977 (BIA Nov. 13, 2013)Jacinto Moises Carbonell-Desliz, A074 054 226 (BIA Jan. 13, 2014)Ricardo Mata-Rosas, A076 404 712 (BIA April 20, 2011)Ismael Daggy Ibrahim, A205 009 375 (BIA Dec. 26, 2013)Herminio Robles-Quintano, A074 351 862 (BIA June 9, 2011)Victor Rosel, A098 194 325 (BIA Dec. 9, 2013)