Source: https://fr.scribd.com/document/309724385/Henry-Noe-Hernandez-Diaz-A088-347-822-BIA-April-11-2016
Timestamp: 2020-07-05 04:39:25
Document Index: 800930902

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1003', '§ 239', '§ 1003', '§ 239', '§ 239', '§ 1003', '§ 239']

enregistrerEnregistrer Henry Noe Hernandez Diaz, A088 347 822 (BIA April ... pour plus tard
Velasquez, Amy Lynn Velasquez Law Group, LLC 500 Old Bremen Rd., Suite 105 Carrollton, GA 30117
DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - HLG 1717 Zoy Street Harlingen, TX 78552
O'Leary, Brian M. Guendelsberger, John Grant, Edward R.
A088 347 822 - Harlingen, TX
Amy L. Velasquez, Esquire
The respondent, a native and citizen of Honduras, was ordered removed in absentia on January 12, 2009. The respondent filed a motion to reopen on January 13, 2015, �leging a lack of proper notice and also alleging exceptional circumstances prevented him from appearing at his hearing. The Immigration Judge denied the motion on January 29, 2015, and the respondent timely appeals. The Department of Homeland Security (OHS) has filed no response to the appeal. The appeal will be sustained and the record will be remanded.
We have considered the totality of the circumstances presented in this case, including that when the respondent was age 17, his sponsor abandoned him, and find that an exceptional situation has been demonstrated warranting reopening to allow the respondent another opportunity to apply for relief from removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(l)� Matter ofJ-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 976 (BIA 1997). Accordingly, the appeal will be sustained, the proceedings will be reopened, and the record will be remanded.
The appeal is sustained, the proceedings are reopened, and the record is
f&.w
<rn�
HARUNOEN, 11DCAS�
Jan � 2015
HBNR )" NOEHB � ANDE
ln·Removal Proceedings
Motion to Reo pen
Amy L. Velasquez, Bsq . Velasquez Law Grou p
. SOO Old.Bremen Rd.,·Suite 1OS Carrollton, GA 301 t7
Delia I. Gonzale z. ACC
U.S. Departmen tofHo mein d �
Harli ng en, TX 78S52
:::i::;z: 0
rT1 �
;�§�
'%."T'l
��-E O
QBDBR. OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDQll . : . g�� ·. r
On J anuary 1 2, 2009, the Court ordered the res ponden t removed to:Homluras r. l,fabaeiiiirn ::eoc=;
pursuant to section240(bXS)(A).oftbe Immigration andNationality Act(IN� or Act). di January 13, 2015, the respondent. through counsel. filed a motion to� argulna. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) bas since filed aresponse inoppositionto therespondent ····· 1 s · ·· motion. The respondent'nnotioa to reopen will be denied. - In his statement submitted in 9UppOl't ofthe motion to reopen. the respondent statesthat be was sixteen years old when he was apprehended by immigration officials. �the tliie he� released into the careofa family mend. Jose Samoa Juarez, hehadturned�yeaic,kl. � respondent states that he went to live with Mr. Juarez in Carrollton, Oeoqia� ltr. saimt1 ::o
moved �k to H� a month later. The respondent went to live with �re� �g
responclentaven thatbedidnotunderstaadtbe�processandthat Mr.s�•toklhim��
bad received any letters �nceming his immigration case
The record retl�ts that the respondent was personally served with the�oticqo � (NTA) on April 8, 2008. Exh. #1. Because the respondent was an - minor. he was transferred into the care of the Office of Refugee R� where he received four hearins
notices. Upon reunification withMr. Juara,therespondentieported thathisaddress wouldbe"'c/o
Jose Santos Juarez 204 A7.alea PlCarrollton.OA 30117
(Fonn 1-830). ANotice ofHearing (NOH)datedOetober 27, 2008 was mailedtotheiespondent at theexact addJasprovided.in Fonn 1•830, ittfonning the respondent ofhisJanuary 12.2009removal
�-o .,,
i,j-.,
Bxh�·#2.(Notice to BOlR: Alien Address)
hearing in Harlingen. Texas. Exh. #3. This hearing notice wu returned to the Court by the United States Postal· Service with a sticker �n :the envelope indicating.that the letter was· being. returned because it was "NOT DEUVERABLE AS ADDRESSED.'• The Court's decision containing the removal order entered in absentia wq similarly.mailedto the respondent atthe address provided by the respondent � Fonn 1-830 and returned is undeliverable.
·· · · · · TheComtconcludestherespondentmu becharged withhavingreceivedpropernoticeofhis removal hearing in accordance with section 239(a)(l) ofthe Act The Notice ofHearingcontaining information concei;ning the respondent's January 12 t 2009 removal hearing was mailed to the respondentathis mostrecent address under section 239{a)(1)(F) ofthe Act. The mostrecentaddles., provided by the respondentwas the addresshe reported in Form I-830. Bxh. #2. The hearingnotice mailed to this address was returned to the Court marked "Not deliverable as�,, Bxh. #3. The Cowt concludes that this constituted proper notiee to the respondent of bis hearing because ''there is proof of-attempted delivery to the last address provided by the alien in accordance with .subsection (a)(l)(F)." INA§§ 239(a)(2){A). (c); I C.F.R. §§ 1003.1 S(b), 1003.26(c) and (d). This · finding is further supported by the respondent's affidavit submitted in support of his motion to reopen. which asserts that he only lived with Mr. Juarez for about amonth before he had to move in with other relatives. There is no evidence that the respondent provided the Court with writtennotice ofhis change ofaddress. INA § 239(a)(l)(F). A removal order entered in absentia should not be rescinded wherethe failure to receive actual notice was due to the alien's neglect ofhis obligationto keep the Court apprised ofbis address. Lo pez -Dubo,i v. Holder. 609 F.3d 642. 647 (5th Cir. 2010). Based on all ofthe above, theCourt�ludes that the respondent has notdemo.astratecl that he did not receive proper notic.e of his removal bearing. and his proceedings will not be reopened under section 240(bXS)(C)(ii) oftho Act.
To the extent the respondent seoks reopening to apply for new reliefftom removal, such as adjustment ofstatus, the Court finds that the motion is untimely. INA f 240(cX7)(C)(i) (requiring that motions to mopen be filed within 90 days after the date ofthe order ofrmioval).
Finally. the CourtconcludestheeiftJums1ancesofthiscase donotwarrant theexeldsoofdle Court's limited discretion 10 reopen""' aponte. See Matte, ofJ.J, 21 LIN 1*. 976 (BIA 1997). The factthat analienhasbecomepotentiallyeligible forsomo form ofrelief&omremovalduetothe passage oftime, without more, ls not ordinarily sufficient to warrani zeopening""',ponte.
Accordingly ,. the.
followina orden shall be entered:
David Ayala United States Immigration Judgo
�6.S?!'!'!.
t. .�
.i!.!
.J--�o-�1$
THIS DOCUMENT WAS SERVED BY: MAIL GY!})PB RSONAL SERVICJti}»}
) ALIEN C/0 CUSTODIAN � IBN'S A1frY/REPl)'mls
BY:COURTSTAFF
'�-h1-:
ATIAciiMBNTS:() BOIR-33
< > BOIR-21
Liif'AI;, sBR.Vlcss LIST9?TimR
-io:P"
::X::%�
fT\ )>
("") -,:J
:;o}:>
.s:= s=
-><-i::> rn�
�(") :::0
C>-I:I.-;xJ
:::o-
-1fT.\
:::o-'--0
('11C'i c::
ri:I.,,�
,;:o�
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF nJSTICE BXBCUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW HARLINGEN lMMIORATION COURT
HARIJNOFN, mxAS�-
J��201S
HBNR)' N��ANDEi-DIAZ
) In·Removal Proeeedings
APJ;»LICATIONS:
ON BEHALF OFD:m BB&PQNDENT,
ON . BEHALF OP.Tiffi GOYBRNMBNT
Delia I. Gonzalez, ACC
.: ��
Amy L. Velasquez, Bsq . Velasquez Law Group SOO Old·Bremen Rd.,·Suite 1OS Carrollton, GA 30117
rri�
U,S. DepartmentofHomeind �ty !��
1717 Zoy Street ffar}inoffl, TX -78S52
•9111
£"Tl=!� ··
QRQER Of THEIMMIORADQN WDOB· · · · g�:1 ·. , J>.
--.• .,
��rr,
: �gffi
%.-ri
On JIDUII)' 12, 2009, the Court oRleiecl the respondent removed toffomluras ,ia,,� pursuantto section240(bXS)(A).ofthe lmmipdion andNationality Aot� or Act). di January 13, 201s. the respondent. tbrollp counsel, filed a motion to reopen argqm&. Tho Department of Homeland Sceurity(DHS) bas since flied a.response in opposi1ionto thenspoildeat 1 s motion. The respondent's motion to reopen will be denied.
In his statement submitted in support ofthe motion to reopen. the respmulent statesthat ho was sixteen years old when he wis apprehended by immipltion officials. � die tiiie he� released intothe careofafamilyfiiendt Jose 8aatos Juarez, be hatlturned sev·� � respondent states that he went to live with Mr. Jwnz in Canollton, � lfr. �-;�
moved bac;k to H� a month later. The responclent went to live with�� ��
respondentaversthat hedid notunderstandthe court processandthat Mr. J�•toldhim��
bad received any letters COIIL'M'n"'° his i1ftmicn.Ation case
The record reflects that the respondent was personally served with 1he�� A� (NTA) on April 8, 2008. Exh. #1. Because the respondent was an -minor. he was transferred blto the care of tho Office or Refugee Resettlement, wlNn he received four hearins notices. Upon reunification with Mr. Juarez. theNSpOndent ieported thathisaddress wouldbe "c/o Jose Santos 1uarez204 Amlea PlCarrollton.GA 30117." Bxh. #2 (Notic,eto F,Olll: Alien Address) (Form 1-830). A Notice ofHearing (NOH)dafed October 27, 2008was�-to 1he respondent at the exact adchas providedin Fonn 1·830, fmbnnins the respondent ofhisJanuary 12, 2009Nftl0Vll
;xr:.
<rn5i �n'-c
hearing in Harlingen, Texas. Bxh. #3. This hearing noti� was returned to the Court by the United States Postal· Service with a sticker �n :the envelope indicating that the letter was· being. returned because it was ''NOT DEUVB� AS �DRESSED." The Court's decision containing the removal order entered in� WQ similarly mailed to the respondent at the address provided by the respondent � F� 1-830 and returned is und�liverable.
· · ·· · · · The·Comtconcludes the respondentcan becharaecfwithhaving receivodpiopernoticeofhis removal hearing in accordance with section 239(a)(l) ofthe Aet. The Notice ofHearingcontaining information concerning the respondent's January 12, 2009 removal hearing was mailed to the respondent at hismost recent address under section 239(a)(1)(F) ofthe Act. The mostrecentaddress provided by the respondentwas the address he reported in Form 1-830. Bxh. #2. The hearing notice mailed to this address was returned to the Court marked "Not deliverable as addressed." Bxh. #3. The Court concludes that this constituted proper notige to the respondent of bis hearing because "there is proof ofattempted delivery to the last address provided by the alien in accordance with .subsection (aXl)(F)." INA§§ 239(a)(2)(A). (c); I C.P.Jl. §§ 1003.lB(b), l003.26(c) and (d). This · fmding is further supported by the respondent's affidavit submitted in support of his motion to reopen, which asserts that he only lived with Mr. Juarez for about a month before he had to move in with other relatives. There is no evidence that the respondent provided the Court with written notice ofhis change of address. INA§ 239(a)(l)(F). A removal order entered in absentia should not be rescinded where the failure to receive actual notice wasdue to the alien's neglect ofhis obligation to keep the Court apprised ofbis address. Lopn-Dubo,i v. Holder, 609 F.3d 642. 647 (5th Cir. 2010). Based on all ofthe above, theCourt concludes that tho respondent has notdemonstrated that he did not receive proper notic.e of his removal hearin& aad his proceedinp will not be teopened under section 240(bXSXCXii) ofthe Act.
To the extent the respondent seeks reopening to apply for new reliefftom removal. such as adjustment ofstatus. the Coult finds that the motion is untimely. INA f 240(c)(7)(C)(i) (requiring that motions to mopen be filed within 90 days after tho date ofthe Older offl:IDOval).
Finally. theComtooncludes tllecimJma1ances ofthiscasedo notwarrant theexeidseof1he Court·s limited discMion to reopen 11111 aponte. See Matte, ofJ.J, 21 l&N Dee. 976 (BIA 1991). The fact thatanalien basbecomepotentiallyeligible forsome formofmlieftrommnovalclue to the passage oftime, without more, ls not ordinarily sufficient to warrant reopening 11111 ,ponte.
David Ayala United States Immigration Judge
'!J.rn�.l
THIS DOCUMENT WAB SERVED BY: MAILCfiD)PERSONAL
TO: ( ) AL1BN
SBRVICl(il>')
( )ALIEN C/0 CUSTODIAN lt1'4JJEN'S A'JhYIREP.f)l)f{S
{)�Bif�
J--30-.j,,,,&
EOIR·33
() BOIR-21
LIST8?1HER
-,,- -T\C>
c5:P
1-0 rrirr,
:µ,
::::,r::: r-
.s= s:=
(T'I�
C'>--1�-;xi>
?'J<f1'l{"11
(".i'\
C"">
�f"l'\(J)
r-11��
Documents similaires à Henry Noe Hernandez Diaz, A088 347 822 (BIA April 11, 2016)
United States v. Robert Kirby, Jr., 4th Cir. (2014)