Opinion ID: 177488
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Filing a new charge of removability after remand from the BIA

Text: Bianco argues that the BIA erred in permitting an additional charge to be filed with the IJ after the remand. The new charge is the one we have been discussing; namely, that Bianco was guilty of a crime of domestic violence. Applicable regulations authorized this new charge to be filed. At any time during the [deportation or removal] proceeding, additional or substituted charges of inadmissibility and/or deportability and/or factual allegations may be lodged by the Service in writing. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(e). Bianco seems to concede as much but argues the IJ is free to consider all new matters unless the BIA qualifies or limits the remand for a specific purpose. See Matter of Patel, 16 I. & N. Dec. 600 (BIA 1978). She asserts that the BIA limited the remand in her case for the specific purpose of considering evidence demonstrating her date of admission to the United States. We look at the remand order to decide if this is correct. The BIA remanded not only for determining the date of Bianco's admission, but also for the entry of such further orders as may be necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. The BIA's guidance to IJs is that unless the Board qualifies or limits the remand for a specific purpose, the remand is effective for the stated purpose and for consideration of any and all matters which the Service officer deems appropriate in the exercise of his administrative discretion.... Id. at 601. Here, the BIA did not limit the purpose of the remand. There was no error in permitting the additional charge. The petition for review is DENIED.