Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/130579577/Joefry-F-Noble-A200-574-891-BIA-Sept-13-2012
Timestamp: 2016-07-31 08:20:50
Document Index: 390698165

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1292', '§ 212', '§ 1003', '§ 240', '§ 212', '§ 240', '§ 240']

UploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicEditors' Picks BooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks AudiobooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks ComicsHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks Sheet MusicHand-picked favorites from our editorsTop BooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop AudiobooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop ComicsWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop Sheet MusicWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodCrafts & HobbiesFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesAdaptationsChildren’sCrime & MysteryFictionHumorMangaNonfictionRomanceSciFi, Fantasy & HorrorSuperheroesYoung AdultPublishersArcanaArchie ComicsBOOM! StudiosDynamiteIDW PublishingKingstone ComicsMarvel ComicsSpace Goat ProductionsTop Cow ComicsValiant ComicsZenescopeDifficultyBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedMixedInstrumentBrassDrums & PercussionGuitar, Bass, and FrettedPianoStringsVocalWoodwindsGenreClassicalCountryFolkJazz & BluesMovies & MusicalsPop & RockReligious & HolidayStandardsWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreI ., MUN SU PARK U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 22041 LAW OFFICE OF PARK & ASSOCIATES PMB A-11, P.O. BOX 10001 DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - HON 595 Ala Moana Boulevard Honolulu, HI 96813-4999 SAIPAN, MP 96950 Name: NOBLE, JOEFRY F A 200-57 4-891 Date of this notice: 9/13/2012 Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case. Enclosure Panel Members: Adkins-Blanch, Charles K. Guendelsberger, John Hoffman, Sharon Sincerely, DOrutL CtVVtJ Donna Carr Chief Clerk yungc Userteam: Docket I
Cite as: Joefry F. Noble, A200 574 891 (BIA Sept. 13, 2012)
NOBLE, JOEFRY F P.O. BOX 506125 SAIPAN, MP 96950 Name: NOBLE, JOEFRY F U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Clmrch, Virginia 22041 DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - HON 595 Ala Moana Boulevard Honolulu, HI 96813-4999 A 200-57 4-891 Date of this notice: 9/13/2012 Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision in the above-referenced case. Tlris copy is being provided to you as a courtesy. Your attorney or representative has been served with this decision pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 1292.5(a). If the attached decision orders that you be removed from the United States or affirms an Immigration Judge's decision ordering that you be removed, any petition for review of the attached decision must be filed with and received by the appropriate court of appeals within 30 days ofthe date ofthe decision. Enclosure Panel Members: Adkins-Blanch, Charles K. Guendelsberger, John H.offman, Sharon Sincerely, DorutL Cwvu Donna Carr Chief Clerk yungc Userteam: Docket I
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Falls Church, Virginia 22041 File: A200 574 891 - Saipan, MP In re: JOEFRY F. NOBLE a.k.a. Joefry Flores Noble IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ------
Decision ofthe Board of Immigration Appeals Date: 3EP 1 3 2012 ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Mun Su Park, Esquire The respondent, a native and citizen of Philippines, was ordered removed in absentia on August 9, 2011. On September 7, 2011, the respondent filed a motion to reopen proceedings, which the Immigration Judge denied on September 23,2011. The respondent filed a timely appeal ofthat decision. The appeal will be sustained, proceedings will be reopened and the record will be remanded. Upon review, we find that based upon the totality of circumstances presented in this case, including the respondent's diligence in hiring counsel and timely filing his motion to reopen proceedings as well as his affidavit in which he explains the circumstances surrounding his failure to appear including his wife's serious illness, we will reopen proceedings, sustaining the respondent's appeal of the Immigration Judge's denial of the motion under our de novo review authority. Accordingly, the respondent will be provided the opportunity to attend another hearing. ORDER: The appeal is sustained, proceedings are reopened, and the record is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the above opinion. I
I I :, NOBLE, JOEFRY .. -
{ . " UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRATION COURT MARINA HEIGHTS II, SUITE 3 01 SAIPAN, MP 96950 C/0 RUTH DE LEON P . O. BOX 506125 SAIPAN, MP 96950 IN THE MATTER OF NOBLE, JOEFRY FILE A 200-574-891 UNABLE T.O FORWARD - NO ADDRESS . DATE: Sep 23, 2011 IS A COPY THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE. THIS DECISION FINAL UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED WITH THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE MAILING OF THIS WRITTEN DECISION. SEE THE ENCLOSED FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS PREPARING YOUR APPEAL . YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL, ATTACHED DOCUMENTS( FEE OR FEE WAIVER REQUEST MUST BE MAILED TO: BOARD OF OFFICE OF THE CLERK P.O . BOX 8530 FALLS CHURCH, VA 22 041 IS OF THE DECISION OF _THE JUDGE AS THE RESULT OF YOUR TO APPEAR AT YOUR OR REMOVAL HEARING. THIS IS FINAL UNLESS A MOTION TO FI LED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 242B(c) (3) OF THE IMMIGRATION AND ACT, 8 U. S.C. SECTION 1252B(c) (3) IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS OR SECTION 240(c) (6), 8 U. S.C. SECTION 1229a(c) (6) I N REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS. IF YOU FILE A MOTION TO REOPEN, YOUR MOTION MUST BE FILED WITH THIS COURT: OTHER: 1 IMMIGRATION COURT II, SUITE 301 96950 ., IMMIGRATION COURT CC: Latey, Chandani, Asst Chief Counsel Marina Heights II, 1st fl Saipan, MP, 96950 , I I FF I
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT Marina Heights II Building, Suite 301 Marina Heights Business Park Saipan, MP 96950 File No.: A200 574 891 ) Date: September 23, 2011 ) In the Matter of Joefry NOBLE, Respondent ) ) IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS ) SAI ) ) ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF THE DHS: ProSe CHARGES: APPLICATION: Chandu Latey, Asst. Chief Counsel 595 Ala Moana Blvd. Honolulu, HI 96813 Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act Motion to Reopen and Rescind the In Absentia Order of Removal WRITTEN DECISION AND ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE I. Procedural History Joefry Noble ("Respondent") is a 42 year old, male, native and citizen of the Philippines. See Exhibits 1, 3. On April 8, 2011, the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") personally served Respondent with the form I-862, Notice to Appear ("NTA"), charging him as removable under: (1) section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General; and (2) INA§ 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) as an.immigrant who, at the time of application for admission, is not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing card, or other valid entry document required by the Act, and a valid unexpired passport, or other suitable travel document, or document of identify and nationality as required under the regulations issued by the Attorney General under section 211(a) of the Act. Id. The NTA ordered Respondent to appear before an immigration judge at the Saipan Immigration Court on August 9, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. Id. 1 I
On April28, 2011, the charging document was filed with the Saipan Immigration Court, thereby vesting this Court withjurisdiction over these proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a). On April 28, 2011, the Court mailed Respondent a hearing notice to the address he provided at P.O. Box 502957, Saipan, MP 96950, informing him that he is required to appear before an immigration judge at the Saipan Immigration Court on August 9, 2011, at 1 :00 p.m. See Exhibit 2. The notice also contained the warnings of the consequences for his failure to appear. ld. On April 9, 2011, Respondent failed to appear at the master calendar hearing scheduled for 1:00 p.m. At the hearing, the DHS submitted a copy of the form I-213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, along with·a copy ofhis passport face page. See Exhibit 3. At 4:00p.m., the DHS motioned the Court to proceed in Respondent's absence as there was no apparent reason why he did not appear for his hearing scheduled for 1 :00 p.m. The Court granted the DHS motion and held an in absentia hearing under INA§ 240(b)(5)(A), which states that any alien who, after written notice required under paragraph (1) and (2) of section 239(a) has been provided to the alien or the alien's counsel of record, does not attend a proceeding under this section, shall be ordered removed in absentia ifthe DHS establishes by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the written notice was so provided and that the alien is removable. The Court found that Respondent was removable as charged under INA§ 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Respondent was not present and had not called the Court or the DHS regarding his absence, and the Court ordered Respondent removed from the United States to the Philippines. On September 7, 2011 , Respondent, pro se, filed a motion to reopen and rescind the in absentia order of removal. In his motion, Respondent asserts he "did not finish high school, uses English as a second-language, and was under so much stress that, in combination, the factors amount to exceptional circumstances that resulted in his failure to understand, remember and appreciate the importance of appearing at the scheduled hearing on August 9, 2011 ." Respondent also stated that he "was very worried about [his] wife at the time, who was very sick and who left on June 25, 2011 for the Philippines for radiation treatment for 'Graves Disease, "' and he was taking care of his four minor children. Respondent also stated that his "power was disconnected and [his] car had broken down, so that [his] daily circumstances were exceptionally stressful." On September 14, 2011, the DHS filed a motion in opposition to Respondent's motion to reopen and rescind the order of removal. In its motion, the DHS argues that Respondent has not established that he was not provided with notice in accordance with the Act. Also, the DHS states that Respondent has failed to demonstrated that his failure to appear was on account of exceptional circumstances. The DHS asserts that Respondent's motion should be denied. II. Analysis Although Respondent titled his motion as both a motion to "reopen" and "reconsider," the Court construes Respondent's motion as a motion to reopen and rescind the in absentia order of removal, because Respondent does not request that the original decision be reexamined in A200 574 891 2 September 23, 2011 I
light of an error of fact or law, a change oflaw, or an argument or aspect of the case that was overlooked. See Matter of Cerna, 20 I&N Dec. 399 (BIA 1991). An in absentia order of removal may be rescinded only 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 was because of"exceptional circumstances" beyond her control, or at any time if the alien demonstrates that she did not receive notice in accordance with the Act or was in federal or state custody. See INA§ 240(b)(5)(C). Here, Respondent's motion to reopen is timely. Respondent does not assert that he did not receive notice of his hearing scheduled for August 9, 2011 at 1:00 p.m:. Indeed, the record reflects that he was served with the notice. See Exhibit 2. Rather, Respondent argues that the Court should reopen proceedings and rescind the in absentia order of removal because he failed to appear on account of exceptional circumstances. Specifically, Respondent asserts that he missed his hearing because he "did not finish high school, uses English as a second-language, and was under so much stress" that he failed to "understand, remember and appreciate the importance of appearing at the scheduled hearing on August 9, 2011." Respondent's Motion. Additionally, Respondent claims that he was taking care of his children, he was worried about his wife who was seeking treatment in the Philippines, and his "power was disconnected and [his] car had broken down, so that [his] daily circumstances were exceptionally stressful." See id. The term "exceptional circumstances" refers to exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the alien, such as serious illness of the alien or serious illness or death of an immediate relative, but does not include less compelling circumstances. INA § 240(e)(1). This definition contemplates unanticipated circumstances beyond the alien's control. See Matter ofShaar, 21 I&N Dec. 541 (BIA 1996). In determining whether the respondent's absence was due to "exceptional circumstances" the Court must look at the totality of the circumstances. See Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). In considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court frnds that Respondent has failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances for his failure to appear and denies his motion to reopen and rescind the in absentia order of removal. Respondent has submitted no evidence that he suffered any serious illness, but rather asserts that he was under stress. The Court notes that most aliens in removal proceeding will suffer some form of anxiety and confusion, but there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that Respondent suffered from any ailment sufficient to constitute exceptional circumstances beyond his control. See Valencia-Fragoso v. INS, 321 F.3d 1204, 1205 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (holding that confusion as to a hearing time does not amount to exceptional circumstances); Matter of J-P-, 22I&N Dec. 33 (BIA 1998) (finding that the alien's strong headache did not constitute exceptional circumstances sufficient to excuse his failure to appear). Although Respondent submitted a letter from his wife's doctor indicating that she suffers from "Graves Disease," the letter is dated March 22, 2011, and it does not constitute A200 574 891 3 September 23, 2011 I
an unanticipated circumstance resulting in his failure to appear, as it is clear that his wife's diagnosis occurred before he was even placed in removal proceedings. While Respondent claims that his power was shut off and his car broke down, he submitted no documentation to support these allegations. See Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 892 (9th Cir. 2002). Moreover, it is unclear when these events allegedly took place and Respondent has failed to demonstrate that these circumstances constitute exceptional circumstances and that these . circumstances caused him from appearing at his scheduled hearing. See Sharma v. INS, 89 f.3d 545, 547 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that alien's travel delay to court did not constitute "exceptional circumstances"). The Court notes that the majority of Respondent's motion argues that he is not removable under the law; however, these arguments are not the reason for his failure to appear. Additionally, the Court notes that Respondent had the opportunity to articulate these bases before the Court, but he failed to do so. The Court notes that Respondent has filed no applications for relief and does not appear to be eligible for any relief. Further, the Court declines to reopen proceedings sua sponte. order: ACCORDINGLY, Respondent's motion is denied and the Court enters the following ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's motion to reopen and rescind the in absentia order ofremoval is DENIED. Immigr tion Judge A200 574 891 4 September 23, 2011 I
Joefry F. Noble, A200 574 891 (BIA Sept. 13, 2012) by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC43 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionIn this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reopened proceedings and rescinded an order of removal issued in absentia upon finding the respondent failed to appear at his or...In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reopened proceedings and rescinded an order of removal issued in absentia upon finding the respondent failed to appear at his original hearing to due his wife's serious illness and diligently hired counsel to pursue his motion to reopen. The decision was written by Member John Guendelsberger and joined by Member Charles Adkins-Blanch and Member Sharon Hoffman.Categories: 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
RelatedU.S. Citizenship Lawyer in San Joseby Alison YewMaria Carmela Flores, A205 136 055 (BIA June 19, 2014)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCNoemi Espinal, A075 928 918 (BIA April 15, 2016)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCRaunel Arroyo, A087 309 888 (BIA May 25, 2012)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCRenato Andre Romero Ruiz, A204 442 747 (BIA Feb. 4, 2016)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCRichard Letts, A201 110 997 (BIA Dec. 1, 2014)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCMynor Sebastian Tulul Tum, A205 756 304 (BIA March 8, 2016)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCJorge Eduardo Araiza, A201 221 422 (BIA Aug. 12, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCNkacoang v. INS, 83 F.3d 353, 11th Cir. (1996)by Scribd Government DocsOtoniel Rincon-Velasquez, A089 284 279 (BIA Aug. 27, 2014)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCMarcha Proclamation- City Hall Weds. at 5 Pmby EditorDamion Robinson, A088 009 491 (BIA June 5, 2012)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCadv_hjs_2012by Alok RanjanFernando Placencia Castellanos, A205 285 337 (BIA Sept. 16, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCLatter v. Otter - 14 10 08 Emergency Recall Mandateby joshblackmanEsvin Escobar Diaz, A201 238 048 (BIA July 24, 2015)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCEEOC v. Sidley Austin Brown. - Document No. 64by Justia.comSegundo Balay Navarro, Jr., A087 213 062 (BIA June 6, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC1:14-cv-00208 #28by Equality Case FilesDaniel Alberto Velasquez-Mejia, A078 972 091 (BIA July 15, 2015)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCProject Proposalby brigitteSalome Feehi Lomo-Mensah, A096 710 971 (BIA May 1, 2015)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCThe Facebook, Inc. v. Connectu, LLC et al - Document No. 255by Justia.comFrankie Eduardo Rendon-Zambrano, A206 037 021 (BIA May 12, 2014)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCHugo Lorenzo-Cabrera, A200 610 998 (BIA June 13, 2014)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCTatiana Johns, A046 791 561 (BIA June 4, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCCrisoforo Ramos-Najera, A200 945 567 (BIA June 27, 2014)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCJose Dennis Alvarado-Canas, A046 041 673 (BIA Feb. 14, 2014)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCSimilar to Joefry F. Noble, A200 574 891 (BIA Sept. 13, 2012)U.S. Citizenship Lawyer in San JoseMaria Carmela Flores, A205 136 055 (BIA June 19, 2014)Noemi Espinal, A075 928 918 (BIA April 15, 2016)Raunel Arroyo, A087 309 888 (BIA May 25, 2012)Renato Andre Romero Ruiz, A204 442 747 (BIA Feb. 4, 2016)Richard Letts, A201 110 997 (BIA Dec. 1, 2014)Mynor Sebastian Tulul Tum, A205 756 304 (BIA March 8, 2016)Jorge Eduardo Araiza, A201 221 422 (BIA Aug. 12, 2013)Nkacoang v. INS, 83 F.3d 353, 11th Cir. (1996)Otoniel Rincon-Velasquez, A089 284 279 (BIA Aug. 27, 2014)Marcha Proclamation- City Hall Weds. at 5 PmDamion Robinson, A088 009 491 (BIA June 5, 2012)adv_hjs_2012Fernando Placencia Castellanos, A205 285 337 (BIA Sept. 16, 2013)Latter v. Otter - 14 10 08 Emergency Recall MandateEsvin Escobar Diaz, A201 238 048 (BIA July 24, 2015)EEOC v. Sidley Austin Brown. - Document No. 64Segundo Balay Navarro, Jr., A087 213 062 (BIA June 6, 2013)1:14-cv-00208 #28Daniel Alberto Velasquez-Mejia, A078 972 091 (BIA July 15, 2015)Project ProposalSalome Feehi Lomo-Mensah, A096 710 971 (BIA May 1, 2015)The Facebook, Inc. v. Connectu, LLC et al - Document No. 255Frankie Eduardo Rendon-Zambrano, A206 037 021 (BIA May 12, 2014)Hugo Lorenzo-Cabrera, A200 610 998 (BIA June 13, 2014)Tatiana Johns, A046 791 561 (BIA June 4, 2013)Crisoforo Ramos-Najera, A200 945 567 (BIA June 27, 2014)Jose Dennis Alvarado-Canas, A046 041 673 (BIA Feb. 14, 2014)Maria Guadalupe Silva-Ramirez, A205 527 911 (BIA Feb. 11, 2016)Ana Maria Scaranni, A089 118 049 (BIA Aug. 13, 2013)