Source: https://it.scribd.com/document/367643141/Armando-Fernandes-Lopes-A036-784-465-BIA-Nov-30-2017
Timestamp: 2019-12-08 05:50:17
Document Index: 119480135

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 13', '§ 1229', '§ 1003', '§ 1003', '§ 110', '§ 1003', '§ 1003']

Armando Fernandes-Lopes, A036 784 465 (BIA Nov. 30, 2017) | Removal Proceedings | Courts
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reopened proceedings sua sponte in light of intervening decisions rendering the respondent’s conviction under Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 265, § 13D no longer an aggravated felony crime of violence. The decision was issued by Member Edward Grant.
SalvaSalva Armando Fernandes-Lopes, A036 784 465 (BIA Nov. 30... per dopo
Ophelia Salazar Ellison, A200 185 139 (BIA Nov. 21, 2017)
Kim Stevens, A035 172 124 (BIA Oct. 12, 2011)
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suue 2000
Church, Susan OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - BOS
Demissie & Church P.O. Box 8728
929 Massachusetts Avenue Boston, MA 02114
Name: FERNANDES-LOPES, ARNALDO A 036-784-465
Date of this notice: 11/30/2017
Cite as: Armando Fernandes-Lopes, A036 784 465 (BIA Nov. 30, 2017)
I Falls Church, Virginia 2204 l
File: A036 784 465 - Boston, MA Date:
In re: Arnaldo FERNANDES-LOPES NOV 3 0 2D17
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Susan Church, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS: Peter J. Pratt
The final order of removal in these proceedings was entered by the Board on October 14, 2010,
when we dismissed the respondent's appeal. The respondent filed an untimely motion to reopen
his proceedings on May 5, 2017. See sections 240(c)(7)(A), (C) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(7)(A}, (C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The respondent does not dispute
the untimeliness of his motion, but requests that the Board exercise its sua sponte authority to
reopen his proceedings in the interests of justice. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). The Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) opposes the motion. The motion will be granted.
The respondent requests reopening and reconsideration of his removability in light of the
Supreme Court's decisions in Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016) and the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit's decisions in United States v. Holloway, 630 F.3d 252
(1st Cir. 2011), United States v. Fish, 758 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014), and Whyte v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 463
(1st Cir. 2015).1 Specifically, he asserts that his misdemeanor conviction under Massachusetts
General Law chapter 265 section 13D no longer constitutes an aggravated felony under section
101(a)(43)(F) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(43)(F). As the respondent has presented evidence of
a change in law that may impact his removability, we will reopen the proceedings on our own
motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); see also Matter of J-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 976 (BIA 1997). On
remand, the Immigration Judge may receive any additional evidence he deems appropriate to the
full resolution of this matter, including additional or substituted charges of removability, if any.
1 The DHS argues that United States v. Dancy, 640 F.3d 455 (1st Cir. 2011), which holds that
assault and battery on a police officer is categorically a crime of violence under the ACCA, is still
controlling. However, prior to the filing of the DHS's opposition, the First Circuit acknowledged
that this offense is not a categorical crime of violence, affirmatively overruling United States v.
Darcy on this point. See United States v. Faust, 853 F.3d 39, 50, 55, 58 (1st Cir. 2017), reh 'g
denied, No. 14-2292, 2017 WL 3045957 (1st Cir. July 19, 2017). The First Circuit found the
Massachusetts statute to be divisible, United States v. Faust, 853 F.3d at 55-58, and on remand,
the Immigration Judge should apply the modified categorical approach to the respondent's
A036 784 465
I See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.30 and 1240.IO(e). Accordingly, the record will be remanded to the
Immigration Judge for further consideration of the respondent's removability in light of the change
in law. Accordingly, the following orders will be entered.
ORDER: The respondent's motion to reopen is granted.
not inconsistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision.
Documenti simili a Armando Fernandes-Lopes, A036 784 465 (BIA Nov. 30, 2017)
4. Estolas vs. Acena, 448 SCRA 233, G.R. No. 157070 January 14, 2005
Hyderabad Karnataka Area Development Board Repeal Act, 2014
Chap014_1_14_16_final (2)
Environmental Law and Sustainable Development Challenges Ahead
Election Law Reviewer (Atty. Alberto Agra)
The Concept of Law - Hart
URATPG - 2015
Anonymous QI50Jdx