Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/147667269/Ricardo-J-Sinclair-A095-965-914-BIA-June-23-2011
Timestamp: 2017-09-21 13:05:50
Document Index: 681942793

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1003', '§ 1003', '§ 1229', '§ 1240', '§ 204', '§ 204']

Ricardo J. Sinclair, A095 965 914 (BIA June 23, 2011) | Removal Proceedings | Public Law
Description: In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reopened proceedings to allow the respondent to pursue an unopposed request for post-hearing voluntary departure. The Board also...
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reopened proceedings to allow the respondent to pursue an unopposed request for post-hearing voluntary departure. The Board also stated that the immigration judge erred in denying the respondent's request to terminate his conditional permanent resident status, noting that the failure to produce affirmative evidence of the bona fides of a marriage is not by itself sufficient to establish that the marriage is a sham marriage. The decision was written by Member Charles Adkins-Blanch and joined by Member John Guendelsberger and Member David Holmes.
Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigra tion Appeals Office of the Clerk
5107 leesburg Pike, S11ite 2000 Falls Ch11rch, Virginia 22041
Farabee, Allen W. P.O. Box 139 Buffalo, NY 14213-0000
Name: SINCLAJR, RICARDO J.
A095-965-914
Date of this notice: 6/23/2011
Panel Members: Adkins-Blanch, Charles Guendelsberger, John Holmes, David B.
Cite as: Ricardo J. Sinclair, A095 965 914 (BIA June 23, 2011)
File: A095 965 914 - Buffalo, New York In re: RICARDO J. SINCLAIR
JUN -13 201J
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Allen W. Farabee, Esquire ON BEHALF OF DHS: Carol G. Bridge Assistant Chief Counsel APPLICATION: Reopening
The respondent, a native and citizen of Jamaica, has timely appealed from an Immigration Judge's May 26, 2009, decision. In that decision, the Immigration Judge denied the respondent's timely motion to reopen removal proceedings so as to allow the Immigration Judge to consider the respondent's request for voluntary departure. The Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") affirmatively indicated its non-opposition to the respondent's motion, and on appeal, the DHS states that it "continues to not oppose said motion." The appeal will be sustained, the proceedings will be reopened, and the record will be remanded to the Immigration Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion and the entry of a new decision. The Board reviews an Immigration Judge's findings of fact, including findings as to the credibility of testimony, under the "clearly erroneous" standard. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003. l (d)(3)(i) ; Matter of R-S-H-, 23 I&N Dec. 629 (BIA 2003); Matter ofS-H-, 23 l&N Dec. 462 (BIA 2002). The Board reviews questions of law, discretion, judgment, and all other issues in an appeal from an Immigration Judge's decision denovo. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003. l(d)(3)(ii). We note the respondent seeks to reopen the proceedings in order to pursue an application for post-hearing voluntary departure under section 240B(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b). We note that on appeal, the OHS has reaffirmed its expressed non-opposition to the respondent's motion, and also noted that ''upon further review of this matter, [it] would not oppose a grant of voluntary departure.'' We consider that reopening is usually granted where both
A095 965 9.14
parties have affirmatively agreed to the reopening of proceedings and the respondent has provided primafacie eligibility for the relief sought absent unusual circumstances not presented here.1 The law provides an alien the right to request relief from removal, including voluntary departure. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.ll(b). Because the Immigration Judge has not addressed whether the respondent was advised of this potential avenue of relief from removal, and was provided an opportunity to apply for relief he is statutorily eligible for, we will remand the record to enable the Immigration Judge to do so. Accordingly, the respondent's appeal will be sustained, the instant removal proceedings will be reopened, and the record will be remanded to the Immigration Court for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for entry of a new decision. ORDER: The appeal is sustained. FURTHER ORDER: The proceedings are reopened, and the record is remanded to the Immigration Court for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for entry of a new decision
1 Although the record reflects that the respondent renewed his petition for the termination of his conditional permanent resident status before the Immigration Court, the Immigration Judge premised his denial on a finding that the respondent had not presented sufficient evidence as to the marital bonafides. However, we note that the failure to produce affirmative evidence of the bonajides of the marriage, by itself, is not sufficient to establish that the marriage is a sham marriage. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(l )(iii)(B), (D) with 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(J )(ii). There was no finding of "marriage fraud" in this case. There is no admission of collusion to evade the immigration laws. There is no evidence that the petitioner was paid to marry the beneficiary. There is no evidence that the marriage was never consummated, that the parties never cohabited, or that the parties did not hold themselves out as married to family and friends. The removal of condition was denied because of the respondent's failure to present sufficient evidence to prove the bonajides of the marriage. To the extent the Immigration Judge's denial of the respondent's motion to reopen suggests otherwise, it is not supported by the record.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRATION COURT 130 DELAWARE AVENUE, BUFFALO, SUITE 410
LAW OFFICE OF ALLEN W. FARABEE ESQ. , P.O. BOX 139 BUFFALO, ALLEN W. 14213
IN THE MATTER OF SINCLAIR, X RICARDO J.
FILE A 095-965-914
UNABLE ·ro
FORWARD - NO ADDRESS PROVlDED THIS DECISION
IS 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 YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL, MUST BE MAILED TO: INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPERLY PREPARING YOUR APPEAL. AND FEE OR FEE WAIVER REQUEST ATTACHED DOCUMENTS, OFFICE OF THE CLERK P.O. BOX 8530 FALLS CHURCH, VA 22041 IMMIGRATION JUDGE AS THE RESULT
OF YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT YOUR SCHEDULED DEPORTATION OR REMOVAL HEARING. THIS DECISION IS FINAL UNLESS A MOTION TO REOPEN IS FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 242B(c) SECTION 1252B(c) TO REOPEN,
IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS OR SECTION 240(c) (6), IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS. IF YOU FILE A MOTION
YOUR MOTION MUST BE FILED WITH THIS COURT: IMMIGRATION COURT 130 DELAWARE AVENUE, BUFFALO, NY 14202 SUITE 410
COURT CLERK CC: STEVEN J. BUFFALO, IMMIGRATION COURT CONNELLY, NY, ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL SUITE 203 FF
130 DELAWARE AVE.,
A095 965 914
Richardo SINCLAIR
ON BEHALF OF DUS
Allen W. Farabee, Esq.
Office of Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security 130 Delaware Avenue, Room 203 Buffalo, NY 14202
ORDER OF THE U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGE
Respondent's Motion to Reopen is DENIED. Respondent was found "not" to have entered into a good faith marriage and therefore the court would not agree to a reopening for that purpose.
j --· -� --··
C"�'
:-_... (-:') ...:·
--; C Cl
c__ c. r--v
: -- " -· ; .• , ·' :
•· ·-·
; ' > Cl --:J ...,.-! C) " rfT1 r1
1-:;;
-· -·- . � ..
r· I ,. '
Documents Similar To Ricardo J. Sinclair, A095 965 914 (BIA June 23, 2011)
Francisco Zendejas-Sanchez, A036 176 508 (BIA March 8, 2011)