FRITZ, CLARENCE ALEXANDER A079-089-179 LASALLE DETENTION FACILITY P.O. BOX560 TROUT, LA 71371

Name: FRITZ, CLARENCE ALEXANDER

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Chief Clerk

5 I 07 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Clrurch, Virginia 20530

FEDERAL DET. CENTER - OAKDALE 2 P.O. BOX 1128 OAKDALE, LA 71463

A 079-089-179

Date of this Notice: 4/28/2014

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.

Enclosure

Panel Members: Miller, Neil P.

Sincerely,

Donna Carr Chief Clerk

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Imm

igrant & Refugee A

ppellate Center | w

ww

.irac.net

Cite as: Clarence Alexander Fritz, A079 089 179 (BIA Apr. 28, 2014)

U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

FalJs Church, Virginia 20530

File: A079 089 179 - Oakdale, LA

In re: CLARENCE ALEXANDER FRITZ

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

MOTION

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Pro se

ON BEHALF OF DHS: Sherron Ashworth Assistant Chief Counsel

APPLICATION: Reopening

Date: APR 2 8 2014

The Board entered the final administrative order on May 14, 2013, when we dismissed the respondent's appeal of the Immigration Judge's decision ordering the respondent removed to the Bahamas in connection with his aggravated felony bank fraud conviction. The respondent has filed a motion to reopen, based on a Louisiana criminal court order vacating the respondent's conviction. See generally Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2003); Matter of Chavez, 24 I&N Dec. 272 (BIA 2007). The court order reflects that respondent's defense counsel did not advise the respondent that his guilty plea may have adverse immigration consequences. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010). The Department of Homeland Security has not responded to the motion; therefore, the motion is deemed unopposed. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(g)(3). The motion will be granted.

On remand, the Immigration Judge may receive additional evidence appropriate to the full resolution of this matter, including additional or substituted charges of removability, if any. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.30 and 1240.lO(e). Accordingly, the record will be remanded to the Immigration Judge for further consideration of the respondent's removability in light of the evidence of the vacated conviction, and for further consideration of the respondent's eligibility for relief from removal.

ORDER: The respondent's removal proceedings are reopened.

FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order.

FOR TEBOARD

Imm

igrant & Refugee A

ppellate Center | w

ww

.irac.net

Cite as: Clarence Alexander Fritz, A079 089 179 (BIA Apr. 28, 2014)