Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/127015386/Jose-Jesus-Parra-Duarte-A078-263-341-BIA-Feb-11-2013
Timestamp: 2018-04-22 13:01:18
Document Index: 517937381

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 240', '§ 240', '§ 212', '§ 1003', '§ 1182', '§ 1229', '§ 1229']

Jose Jesus Parra-Duarte, A078 263 341 (BIA Feb. 11, 2013) | Removal Proceedings | Judiciaries
Description: In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) found the respondent statutorily ineligible for voluntary departure under INA § 240B(c) because he was previously granted volunt...
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) found the respondent statutorily ineligible for voluntary departure under INA § 240B(c) because he was previously granted voluntary departure after being found inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(6)(A). The decision was written by Member Sharon Hoffman.
PARRA-DUARTE, JOSE JESUS 435 S. AMARILLO VALLEY STANFIELD, AZ 85172
DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - PHO P .O.Box 25158 Phoenix, AZ 85002
Name: PARRA-DUARTE, JOSE JESUS
A 078-263-341
Date of this notice: 2/11/2013
DCirtttLCt2AAJ
Cite as: Jose Jesus Parra-Duarte, A078 263 341 (BIA Feb. 11, 2013)
File: A078 263 341 - Phoenix, AZ In re: JOSE JESUS PARRA-DUARTE IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Pro se 1 ON BEHALF OF DHS: Shane Hartman Assistant Chief Counsel
FEB 11 201J
The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, has appealed from the Immigration Judge's December 2. 2010, decision? In that decision, have no viable application for relief before him, the Immigration Judge ordered the respondent removed from the United States to Mexico. The appeal will be dismissed. We review Immigration Judges' findings of fact for clear error, but questions of law, discretion, and judgment, and all other issues, de novo. 8 C.P.R.§§ 1003.l(d)(3)(i), (ii). The respondent has conceded both before the Immigration Judge and also on appeal that he is not statutorily eligible for voluntary departure as he was previously permitted to depart voluntarily after having been found inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A). See section 240B(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(c). Nevertheless, the respondent argues on appeal that he should be granted voluntary departure in the exercise of discretion alone. However, the respondent has the burden to establish both statutory eligibility for relief and that a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted. See section 240(c)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4). Neither the Immigration Judge nor the Board has the authority to grant voluntary departure in the exercise of discretion alone as we are bound by the statutes and regulations we administer and have no authority beyond that which is delegated by the Attorney General or provided for by statute. See Matter ofValdovinos, 18 I&N Dec. 343 (BIA 982). Accordingly, the following order will be entered.
We note that Kevin M. Gibbons, Esquire, has been suspended from practice before the Board. As this attorney is not permitted to practice law before the Board at this time, this order is being sent directly to the respondent.
Removability is not disputed.
A078 263 341
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRATION COURT Phoenix, Arizona File A 78 263 341 Date: December 2, 2010
JOSE JESUS PARRA-DUARTE Respondent
212 (a) ( 6) (A) ( i) presence in the United States without admission or parole
APPEARANCES: ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Shane C. Hartman, Esquire Office of the District Counsel 2035 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Daniel Jenson, Esquire 1990 West Camelback Road, Suite 102 Phoenix, Arizona 85015
ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE The Respondent is a native and citizen of Mexico brought into proceedings with the filing of a Notice to Appear marked as Exhibit 1, charging removability as noted above. The Respondent,
through counsel, at a Master Calendar hearing admitted the allegations of the charging document and conceded the charge.
Based upon pleadings the Court found removability established by clear and convincing evidence. Mexico is designated as the The Respondent was His matter At country for removal should that have to occur. given the opportunity to look in relief possibilities. was reset to a Master Calendar hearing on December 2, 2010.
that hearing, Respondent's counsel conceded both in writing in the brief form and orally that the Respondent does not qualify for any relief including voluntary departure and cancellation of removal. Inasmuch as he has been found to have been removable by clear and convincing evidence, and has no relief, the Court hereby orders the Respondent removed from the United States to Mexico based upon the sustained charge herein.
LAMONTE S. FREERKS Immigration Judge
A 78 263 341
CERTIFICATE PAGE I hereby certify that the attached proceeding before LAMONTE S. FREERKS, in the matter of: JOSE JESUS PARRA-DUARTE
Phoenix, Arizona was held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
Rebecca L. Price, Transcriber
January 5, 2011 Completion Date rlp/bjn
Documents Similar To Jose Jesus Parra-Duarte, A078 263 341 (BIA Feb. 11, 2013)
Villar v. Lynch, 1st Cir. (2016)
Clebson Sousa Carneiro, A078 254 701 (BIA Jan. 6, 2017)
Hiram Abecardo Gonzalez-Sarat, A205 164 431 (BIA Nov. 23, 2015)
Cevada Azizyan, A044 428 950 (BIA May 13, 2016)
Ledesma-Sanchez v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2015)
Juan Gabriel Soria-Escobedo, A091 381 609 (BIA Dec. 1, 2015)
Rudolph Ramphal v. U.S. Attorney General, 11th Cir. (2015)
Alicia Lilian Povsic v. Atty Gen USA, 3rd Cir. (2010)
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Podfitness, Inc. - Document No. 61