esperanza alcaraz-de vasquez, a076 626 660 (bia feb. 18, 2014)

8/12/2019 Esperanza Alcaraz-De Vasquez, A076 626 660 (BIA Feb. 18, 2014)

1/13

Rosas, Xavier Esq.Law Oices of Elsa Mainez APC W 6th See Suite os Angees CA 9

U Depatment Jstice

Executive Ofce r Imigration Review

Board of Immrain ApelsQce o the Clek

07 Leesburg Pike, Sute 00Fal Chrc Vgin 30

HICE Oice o Che Coe - S. Oive See 8h FooLo Anees CA 9

Name: ALCARAZDE VASQUEZ EE A -

De o h noe 2/18/2014

nclosed is copy o he Board's decision and oer in te above-eence case.

Enclose

MC P AP RD L

Siceel,

Do cDoa Ca

ie Cek

yg

Um: k

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Esperanza Alcaraz-de Vasquez, A076 626 660 (BIA Feb. 18, 2014)


2/13

US 'eparent o JusceExecutive Oce Immgraon Reiw

Decson of he Bod of graon Appeal

Fas Chuch, Vgna 3

ie A07 2 0 os Angs, CA Dat

In ESEZA ALCARAZDE VASUEZ aka. Aicia OizHeera

IN EMOVA PROCEEDIGS

PEL

ON BEHAL O ESODENT Xavi Rosas, Esuie

CHARGE:

Notic Sec 22(a)()(C)(i), I&N Act 8 U.SC 82(a)()(C)(i)] aud o w mispesentation o a matia c (whdra)

Sc 22(a)()(C)(ii) &N Ac [8USC 182(a)()(C)(ii)] ase cam o Uned Sated cizenship (ithdawn)

FEB 8

Sec 22(a)(7)(A)(i)(), &N Act 8 SC. 82(a)(7)()()() mmigant no vaid immia visa o ety docmen (sstand)

odged Sc 22(a)()(C)(i), &N Act [8 SC. 82(a)()(C)(i) -ad o wi miseprsentaion o a mateia ct (o ssaied)

Sec 212(a)(9)(C)()(I) I&N ct8 SC. 182(a)( )(

)(i)(II)

]-

Reny whou admission ae being odered emoved (susted)

APLICATION Motion to Terminate

e rspondnt, a nive and citize o Mexico, appeas the May 13, 2010 ad Ocoe 5200, decisions o the mmigraion Judge nding her removab as chaged ad deying hemotion to teinate rocedings

ISSUE

The ustion be us on apa s heth whe the resodnt souh eer to thUnied Staes on Juy 9, 200 she was popery chged as an aivig ain We aser thauestion in the amative

ACTS AD PROCEDURL HISTORY

On Agst 29 198 owng epeded remoa pocedgs the espode as remoedom he Uted Saes unde the name icia Orizeea (077 224 015) prs tosecion 235(b)() o th Immiration ad Natioaiy c 8 SC 1225(b() (xh 5) he



3/13

A07 626 60

respodet the reetered he ed Sates a a uo me d was ated awpeaet resdet (LR) status o February 25 1999 tough a amybased petto (Exh 4)

O Juy 9 2006 the respodet sougt reety o the ed States ad advsed theDepaet o Homead Secuty (DHS) at she had ost her LR card The respodet wasparoed ad uy 2007 the DHS sered her wh a Noce o Appe (862); chgg her as avg ae ad aegg tat she was ged LR staus o Februy 25 1999 she apped admsso to the Uted States o Juy 9 2006 d oay decaed that she was aUted States ctze e DHS er aeged that she had made aother ora cam to beg aUed States ctze to a nspectg oce at a por o etry o August 29 1998 as AcaOzHeea d o that date wa odered removed om the Ued Sates pursuat o secto235(b)() o the Ac. The DHS er aeged hat she sought to procure by aud or wmsepreseaton o maea c to ga admsso to the Ued States o a mmgratobeet ad dd ot possess o peset a vad mmgrato vsa a reery permt a vad bodercrossg detcao cd or y other vad ey docume upo her appcao radmsso nto the Ued States Accodgy he DHS carged he respodet whemovaby uder secos 22(a)(6)(C)() 22(a)(6)(C)() ad 22(a)(7)(A)()() o the Act8 USC 82(a)(6)(C)() (a)(6)(C)() (a)(7)(A)()(I) (Exh )

O October 30 2007 the respode tough cose admed that se s a ave adctze o Mexco wo had adjused he status o that o LR o Februay 25 1999 Se deedhe remag aegaon ad deed he chages o removabty cotaed e Notce oAppea The DHS reuesed a couce oder o gaer documets wh wc o prove theaegatos

O November 14 2007 he DHS served respode's couse wth Addtoa Charges rnadmssty/Depoay (26) whch assered addtoa ctua aegatos eu othose cotaed e Notce o Appear ad wthdrew the seco 212(a)(6)(C)() charge (Exh 2)

O Mch 4 2008 te DHS ssued the respode aother I261 whdawg the chageder seco 22(a)(6)()() ad cargg the respodet de secto 2 2(a)(9)(C)()(I) adaga uder secto 2 2(a)(6)(C)() based o he respodets ure o dscose o theterewg ocer at her adustme o staus ervew o ebruary 25 999 ha se adbee removed om e Uted Staes o ugus 29 98 (Tr a 1618 Exhs 2a 4 ad 5)

I November 2008 he respodet moved to enate poceedgs argug hat DHSmpropery chaged he a avg ae ad tat she shoud popery be carged as areg LR suppo he respode argued ha because she had preseted evdece o her

status as a LR aer proceedgs commeced she coud o oge be charged as a vg

1 The resode epoed a card ad bee soe whe se wa ousde e ed Saeso Juy 8 2006 (se poce repor May 20 2009 Respode's Moo to Temae Tab A)

2 As par o er appcato r adjusme saus e respodet checked e No bock swer to ueso 9 o he -495 Have you ever bee depoed om the US o removedom the US. a goveet expese excuded wt e pas year or are you ow excusoor depoao poceedgs? e Exh. 4 a 4

2



4/13

A0 626 660

ie. he aeatve, the esponden coteded tha her 998 oer of emova was no vadShe also gud a i 1999 the goveen as awe of her pior exped removal orde,ated her aduset of stas despite the pror ode, ad was auhorized o do so

O ay 13, 200, e gratio Judg ssued irim orde susaig e chgesuder secos 22(a)()(A)(i)(I) d 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(II), ding tha the espodent aproperly charged an aivig a," bu not susng th charge under sctio22(a)(6)(C)(i) o the Act, based o he alegaion a her visa appcaio was pocured byaud o wil misrepresetaon of maeria ct (May 13, 2010, I at 8) The gratoJudge deteined that o o section 10(a)(13)(C) excepios applied to he repondet tocharge hr a iving alen, but that, everheless, she did o have a sbsttivl lawladmissio" r peet residece d was o entled o be consided LR upo eeny(ay 13, 2010, a 4) The Immigraon Judge re ded the espondes moion totrmiate proceedings O Ocober 15, 200, e iaion Judg ssued a a decisioncocluding at the repodets guments regarding the propriety of her 1998 removal did notater the May 13, 200 interim decision The ato Judge oeed he spodetrmove o Mexico

DISCUSSION

O appeal, rspoden ges a a LR she as mpopey cag as rivgalie uder sectio 212(a) o e Act We do o agree. Te rspondnt properly charged asa riving alien because she could ot dmostrate hat she was ettled o be admtted to heUitd Staes See 8 C.FR 23 (()(i) (equring a perso camng LR staus o preste rquied docments d establsh staus to he saisctio o spectig ocer). Ou 9, 2006, hen the responden sogh reety to the Unied Staes, she advsed he nspecngocer ha he R card had bee stole hle sh a outside of th Ued StatesCosqetly, she did ot possess o pese a vaid immigra vsa, ery pet, vad bordrcrossng idetication cd, or y oher vaid ey documet r admission nto UnitedSates The rspoden ad o evidece of he LR status d, here, he DHS sered herwith a Notice o Appe (862) chrgig he, ter alia, nder sectio 212(a)(7)(A)()() of heAc a ariving ale (x ).

The repodet gues tha she should have een amted to h Utd Stats a LRbecause inig e inspecting oce that her ee cd" had been soln was sufciet toestabish tha sh was o rrivig aie subjec o a secio 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) chge oadmissibliy (Respont's Br at 9) hs gumet s msplaced. S is coec a secio21 (b) o he Act, 8 U.SC 181(b), alows the Ato Gnal, in his discretion, o readmeung reside grts wihou equrig hem to obtai a passport, immt vsa,ery permit or or ocumetato ostdg secto 212(a)(7)(A)()(I) o Ac. Seesection 21(b) of h Ac, 8 C 18b) 8 CR. 21. oeve, co 1) of Act does ot mdate hat the Atoy Geeal eamt ohese admissible alens who r i

The DS did o appal miation Juge's deenaio ta the espodent was oeligible r adjusent of status nde section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) o the Act, aud o willmsreprsntatio o a material c.

3



5/13

A07 66 0

this posre and he respondent here as no readmited in e Attoey Genera's discreionTherere e DHS properly served her ih a Noice o Apper I-86) chging her inter aiander section a)7)(A))I) o he Ac s rving alien Exh )

We aee wih he Imiaion Judge ha he responden is removabe as alien ho isinadmssble Secion 45(a) adjusment o saus ca only be granted o an aien whodemonsaes hat se is aissile o the Unied Sates r ermnent residence Secion45a) o te Ac e respondent canno presenly saisy a admissibiiy reuirementAltough durng proceedings he responden presened docments establishing a coorable caimto reng residen stas he burden s upon e respondent o demonsrae tha she is cearyand beyond doub enied to be admied o he Uned Saes and is no inadmissibe udersecion or ha she is by ce and convincing evidence ay presen in he Ued Saespusuan o a ror admisson ee Matter of Rens 5 &N Dec 63 65 (BA 0)obserng hat secton 40c)() o e Act 8 US 9Ac)) expressy aocaes theuden o proo o he alien here e alien s aplict r admission) Here he respondentwas not abe o mee her brden o roo d he mmigraion Judge ropery sstaned echarge agans her nder secion (a)9))i)II) o he Ac Secion a)9))i)(II) o heAct renders inadmissible n aien ho is nlay presen aer having been ordered removedunder secion 35b) ) excepion o secion a)9)()i)II) inadmissbiiy appies i heaien seeks admission aer more han I 0 years er he dae o e aliens as depe om thenited Saes Secion (a)9))i)(I) o he Ac Furer secion a)9))ii) o heAct alos a aver o secion a)(9))(i)I) inadmssbiy n e case o en ho is aVolence Agais Women Ac (VAWA) seetioner

The DHS submied a ceried copy o the respondent's Notice to Alien OrderedRemoved/Depre Vericaion -96) as evidence ha the respondent as removed om thened States on Augus 9, 998 Exh 5) he Form 96 bears he respondent's phooaphand ngerprn nd ws you e prohbed om entering atempting o ener or beng in he

Unite Sates r a period o 5 years om he date o your depe om he Uned Saes as aconseuence o your having been und inadmssbe as arrving aien n proceedings undersection 35b)) or 40 o e Ac Id The responden reentered he Unied Saes ihn helowing monhs rather than aer 0 years because she as physicaly present a herebruy 5 999 adjusent o saus ineriew (Exh 4) in violaion o section(a)9))(i)II) o he Act The responden does no dispute ha she as removed om theUned Sates in 998 and hat she sough adjusmen whn 0 yes o er remova5 Theresponden does not aege and he record does no revea ha he respondent is eigibe r a

4 The responden does no aege ha she had eiher reuesed or been granted a waiver undersecion b) o he Act or ha she was in possession o a approved Appicaion r Waiver oPasspo and/or Visa orm I93)

5 The respondens gmen ha she ikey receved saus in onjncon ih n Appicaonr Permission o Reappy r Admission Ino he nied Sates Aer Depoaon or Removao I) Respondent's Br a 7) is thou mert Even assmng ha she ad obtnedsuch permission ich is no reected in he record) a o I- aiver wi not cre herinadmissbliy under secion (a)9))(i)II) o he Ac See Matter o orresGarca3 I&N Dec 866, 873-76 BIA 006)



6/13

A06 626 60

waie of secion 212(a)()(C)(i)(I of Ac unde secion 212(a)()(C)(iii) (edinwes r aiens who e VA WA sefpeione) Bease he Immiaon Jde proryssained e charge nd secion 212(a)()(C)()(II), he esonden is emoabe See 8 CFR 12408 See Maer of Koloamaangi 23 I&N Dec 548 (BIA 2003) hodn a whe

eann esidn saus has been wony coned ie, akng susi awness"

is deemd ne o hae been popy ed and s oid a iniio)

e aae, esondn gues ha she s no inadmissbe ecase he 18remoa was no egay aid ad she reaes he agmens mad eow (Respondens Br a4-) We a wi e miaion Judge ha eoa pocedins rs o 235){) ofe Ac ar he exsie oine of he DH, d e Ac secis a hese eoa orderse ony se o admsaie appea in cicsces no pesn hee (May 13 2010, Ja 4) See secions 235()()(A)(i) (C) (D); 8 C.R 12353b)(2)(ii Morales-Izquero Gonles 48 F3d 484 7-8 ( Ci 200) (oding a i is no ihn oince ofe iaion Jde o eiew he popey of he prio remoa od en f e dngremoa oceeding isef ioaed due rocess) Maer of W-C-B-, 24 I&N Dc 118122-23 (BA 200) We need no adess e e amens made by he espondenegdin he coae aak on hr pio emoaL Accodngy he apea wi be dismissed

ODER: Th apea s dsmissed

FRTR ORDER: The sponden is orde emoed o Mico.

5Cite as: Esperanza Alcaraz-de Vasquez, A076 626 660 (BIA Feb. 18, 2014)


7/13

.s peament of Jusicexeutve Oe Immgraon Ree

Dso of he Bord of Imman Appes

s Chh Vrgn 41

Fe A 2 0 - Los Ages, CA Dae:

I : ESEZA ACARAZDV ASUEZ a.a Acia Oz-Hea

CONCG ONION Rog A auey, Board Membe

04

This cas is subject to pope soutio on a dieen and much simpe basis ha ha eiedo by Bod Mmbe Co Dspit th espoden's agument o he coay, I age with heImmiato Judge ad he opio of Boad Membe Co that it is cea hat, by v ofhavg be sjct to expdtd mova po to beig gated aw pmant side(LR) status such tus was ogy coed, ispecive of whth the espondent was

spons o cupab po mova ot beg bough o the ateo of heiao authoites. It ows at the espodent was nev a awu pemaent esidentd ou decsio in Matte of Kooamatang 23 I&N Dec 548 (BIA 2003), whe wedtied at whee pmt sde was wongy coed, i.e, as ackig subsveaess," it s demd neve o have ben popey ganed and is void ab iniio.

Not beg vested w vad LR status whn sh appeaed at the pont of etry, thespodt was matey dted to have ben popey chagd as an aivg aiFeoe th tim ad pac esovng he coecss of emova chages s durigpocdgs be igatio Judge. Matter of Vaenzeaeix 2 I&N Dc. 53 (BI202). H, h Immigato Judg ighty und ha th DHS met ts buden to show tha he

espodet's ostesb R status was ongy obtaed IJ (Intem Opinion) a

Th dsst's positon hat an eing aen ho has acued LPR saus must be chagedde h egme se sction 0(a)(3)(C), evn i s at und hat the satus waswogy obaied, is at odds with Matte of Vaeelaex spa whee we uphed he paoe(which s ot admssion," se secto 22(d)(5)) of a etuig LPR cng cmina chargs a possbe cime ivovig moa tutude (CIMT). The vadity o t chag was atdtened the ai's mova poceedig, d was uphd de o he aiens havg bensubsey covctd of cim to swe which we had paoed hm ad a w und wasa CIMT. But th chge wod ot have be sustand if te aien had be acutd.saby, he sam kid of amt, i., oe at does ot ca th ug LPR's

admisso, wod b pop wh a tig LR was beievd o have abadoned hs o hestaus, bt th cogis of cs govg hat oe compex deteminaon woud not bavaiab n mmation wh h a aivd t f

Moove, he dssnts posiio eies a stak vioaio of he bedock pncpe ostatutoy costuctio hat the se tem, n hs case awy admied pmanetesdec," which is ded e Ac at secton 0(a)(20), shoud no b accoded odit maigs. As oted, we hdd e cous o appas, icudng in e inth Cicuitwhee s case ises, have dosed ou tpeaionthat he tm means that he saus oLPR must hav ben substtvey ighty obtaned. oeov, hs undsanding ong pecededh enacmn of secton (a)(20) ee e.g. Mae of T, I& Dec. 3 (BI 5

Cite as: Esperanza Alcaraz-de Vasquez, A076 626 660 (BIA Feb. 18, 2014) (Pauley, concurring)


8/13

626

Mtt of onst 2d 439 (5t C 983) Monet v. , 791 F.2d 752 (9th Ci 98).onss hos to s h s te i section (a)(3)(C), ad shod be nd to haeintede hat oy LP th vd stts ae sbect to ts regime t woud hae bee easy rConess to pece secto (a)()(C) wi nuage stati at a aien admited rpemet esdece (thereby emiatn the word awy) sh not e reed as seekin admssio uess one of the six enumeated exceptons appies By usng the very te idened in e se secto (ineed the same sbsecto) o the Act however Congess ceryexpessed its itent that e detio thee appies, sch that Mar of o/ota spr,goes

Fo e eog easos, wod n at the Immiratio Jdge coecty appied Maofoatnto upho e respodents chges uder sectio 22 o the Act.

2

Cite as: Esperanza Alcaraz-de Vasquez, A076 626 660 (BIA Feb. 18, 2014) (Pauley, concurring)


9/13

US-Deare of Jusieecuve Oce Immgon Reve

ecson ofhe Bod of mmon Appes

F hch, gn 53

Fie A076 626 660 Los Angele, Date

In e ESPEZA ARAZDE VASQUZ aka Alicia OizHeera

DSSENTNG PON Teesa Donov, Temporary Boad embe

FEB 18 2014.

is ce invves imptnt question that aects hw aien who have been nedlaw peen esien (LPR) sau must be chaged when eng om aba, when uchstau i un in reova oceeng o have been wrongy cnferre. The uesion beeus is whee aien whose LPR sts was unally acuie hould be chage undesection 27 f he Iigain n ationality c, 8 U.S.. 1227, unless ne o moe of he

enumeaed excepions in secion 0(a)(1)() of te c, 8US 101(a)(3)() apples, ouder secton 212 f te Ac, 8 US. 1182, ince sch alie was ever entitled to that tatu conclde hat a reing LPR, whe status is later deteine to have bee unlallyacqired, is poely chge unde secin 237 f the ct, unle ne or mre o the0(a)(1)() excepions aplie.

The swe to this queion lies in he statuty enitin of admission at secto 0(a)(3)of the Ac. e es adiin" d adited" ae dened sectin (a)(3)() o thect as e lawl ent of he alien into e United Stte aer inpecton and authoizaton byan miaion oce" (ephai added). In Matter of Qui/ant an, 25 & Dec 285 (BI200) we cnsideed wheher e espndent was requied to esablish hat her entry w

ubstivey lal in oe o hw e ha been adited wihin the menig of ection0(a)(1)(A) f he c e ecognized tha we had consitenly itepeed he teinseced nd adied" in secion 245(a) f e Act, as reuing nly prcedura reulaye conclued that when ne enacted ecti 10(a)()() of he Act, t d o itend tequie a n iens eny be subtvely awful in orde to uaify aduent of tatus.Accodingy, we eld tha by eelve, te em admited' d admiion, a ened insecion 101(a)(1)(A) continue to denoe pocedal eguaiy r purposes f adument ofsau, ahe h comliace ih substantive lega requireent." Id. a 290. See also Sumv Hoder 602 Fd 092 (9h i 2010) (concludin tha the erm admiion" a dened insection (a)(3)() of he Act, rers t a proceualy reg amissio, ot a tatveylawfu one)

Secton 10(a)()() of he ct set rt a ecc regie r etermining wen aen PR may be chged as aplc r adson ad oide at w csecied exceions, LPRs e n condered o be eekng adission See generay Matter ofColldo, 1 &N ec 106 (BIA 1998) If aiens who wee anted PR stus may be nd tobe aplic aiion, bed on a deenation that the atus wa wronly confee, thiwold violae e egime ceated by ones and constitue, in eec, a seventh excepion Thiswuld ime a condiion peceden, namely, at the alen in ct be an aien laly adter peent edence" Bt thee s n indican that e eLPRas ued n ths contetis intende disnguish those wh lwy acured LP u om se ho dd unlawlly or doe the secin ditinguh te whoe LP tau wa awl om those wo

Cite as: Esperanza Alcaraz-de Vasquez, A076 626 660 (BIA Feb. 18, 2014) (Donovan, dissenting)


10/13

07 2 0

revoly obaned L saus, bu lae are deened o have been accorded such staus nvolaon of law aer he erm L as sed n he contex of he denion of admisson sused a a e of o distinguish aliens who have been accorded LP saus wheher lawlyor no om alens who have no acquired suc sats Generaly we do no vew stautolguage n isoao, bt mu read the words n their contex and wih a view o ther lace n

he oveal auory scheme Se Maer of TL 2 &N Dec 341 34 (B 2010 (cingFod ad Du Adm v B lamso Tbacc rp 29 US 120 (2000)

ecognze ha oer conexts we have erreed e erm an aen awlly admed rermanen resdence," o requre a an aens acqusion of L saus be sbsiveylawl or exame Maer of Koloamatag 23 &N Dec 48 (B 2003) we consuedlawly admted r een resdence" as dened n secon 101(a)(20) of the c asrequrng comlce wi subsanve legal requiemens, no mere rocedural regularty" Wedeermied ha where eanen resden sas h been wrongly conferred e, as lackngsubsave awlness," is deemed eer to have been roerly aned and s vod ab noBu Kloamaa dd o clely resolve he sse resened n hs case becase (and he

cases on wich eled) was rendered in he conex of eligibity r reef and dd no nvove achgg sse o a reing L alen n he conex of an adsson o he Uned Saes

Sgncanly, ad ehas nnended coseqence of e majorys aroach s hat o only eas a reg L as an alcan r admsson bu removes he alens stas asan L hs s cona o our wel esabshed recede hodng ha an LP reans suchsatus l en of a nal admnsraive orde of removal See Mate of Lk 18 & Dec 101(B 198 8 100() he ajory dsregards e hstorcal c ha he resondenaled and was graned L satus hs s no o say hat an alen who wronglly acquresL saus s mmune om rosecuon he ssue of wheher LP staus was correcy grantedremains relevan es of he charges tha may be brough under secton 23 7 of he c s in

hs case he resonden mus be charged under 237 d no an vng alen der 22

he majortys aoac rases anoher queson, hat s whch ar bears the brde ofroof r emovaby hs case although the resonet was L r ove yes hersaus was treated as vod ab ino y he graon Judge e urden of roo was acedon he resonden o esabsh ha she was cleary and beyond a doub eled to be admited toe Uned Saes (J ay 3 2010 decison a 8) See secon 240(c(2( of the c; 8 US 229a(c)(2() (alcans r admsson bear the burden of roving ha they are cleary andbeyod doub enled o be admited and are no nadmssble under secon 212(a of he c

would vacae he ay 13 2010 and Ocober 1 2010 decsons of the mmgraon Jdge

and remand hs cae o ord he HS he ooruny o roerly chage he responden undersecon 237 of e c

eresa L Doovanemorary Bod eber

2

Cite as: Esperanza Alcaraz-de Vasquez, A076 626 660 (BIA Feb. 18, 2014) (Donovan, dissenting)


11/13

Fie No:

In he a of

I '

(

"

E SAES PAET OF CEEXECI OFICE O MIGTIO REIEW

MGO COTLOS AGES, CLIFORI

76 626 660 ))))

ALCEZ E SQEZ, Espranza ) MOVL OCEEING)

Resonde

ES:

))

Seio 212(a)(6)(C)(i) o he mmirion a aionaiy A (A)-ain w by aud wiu maia mintacu dcumntain

Seo 1a))A)) o he Ammigant nt i in vaid nty dcumnt at t tim icatin admii.

Son 212({9)(C)(i)( o e A-in w nt t Uitd Sa wiu admiin ama

ACATIO Responens oon o Temae

O BEF OF RSONDETXae osas EsqueLa Oes of sa anez523 Wes 6 See S 633Los Anes Caa 90014

ON BEF O TE GOERNMNAssisan Cie ouselUS Deparmen o Hoad Sei606 S Oe See, 8h FooLs Aes Caa 900

EISION D OR OF TH IMMIGRION JUDG

. ocdural HistorO a 3 010 he Co iss a n oe d a Rson wa

o a a san Gos haes n seons l a(an 1a7 he A Se d of h aon Je A a hean hd oa 1 010 Rsodn nda ha she oud no seek a of eef.

Resondn has sbed an adona bf n h sh asses ha aodn o hepo an a exsn a he o h usen h aon as ai an espie

eson de


12/13

. ..(

he prio exedited remova order e Cout ill consider Reondets additional arumetbere enering a nal oder in he ase

I Law & nalyssResondent asses that he er Immiraion and Nauraliation Sevie IS had

the autority to aprove er aplication adjusment of status otithstanding an expediteremova oder. In upport of he contetion, she cites to a deciso y te Boad of mmgatioAppeals and a memorandum isued y the leacy IS The Cout il l aalyze each i tu.

Resodent rst ctes to a March 3, 2 S memorau ue y Micael Pearson,xecutive Asociate Commisioner, Oce o ield Operations HQD 7/21. 24-P, D 7) earon Memo"). Se states that accordi to the Pearson Memo, a properly edarmative Adustment of Status appication under A 245i) was considered time consetedto y the Attoey enera Reondent's rief a 2. hus, [Respondet] ad o ulawl

pesence, and approval by IS a consideed nunc pro tune meanin he hole time asauthorie tus oviating any aility y the rmer S to even issue an exedite emovalorer" Id. However, te earon Memo addese only the accual of ulawl presence ilean astment aplicatio is endin; it provides no uidance on te nstant isue of whetheradustment can be rated notithtading an exedited removal orer. Terere,Resodets ctation to te Pearso emo does not ersuade the ou tat her aplication radjustment of status as vaidy gated

Responent ext cites to Mater of C stro, 21 I&N Dec 3 79 BA 99) in supor o erarument Casto the resodents le a motion o eopen their excuio proceedis ioder o apply adjusment of saus. The oad held tat in exclusion oceedins,

jurisdicion ove an alien's aplicaion adjustment of status lies it the distict diecto othe S ate an h e Cour he oad rher staed tat the espondents could e theiradustment aplications ith he district decto of the o ca act on the applicationindepedently of these poceedings" Id at 380. Resondent aes that in light of Catro, itseemed ikely to the S ocer tat they too coud approve of and ave urisdiction over theupdated vesio of excluio orders tat ecame exedited removal oders" Responet Bieat 2 ist, Resondent arumen conates excluion oders ith expeited removal ordersoeove, the Boad did not address i Casto whete a aplican wih a io expeditedremova oder oul noeteless be eliible adjustmet heere te Cour ndsResodents arguments do not ate he analysis et th i he previously issued ineim oderregarding emovabiliy.

III Cncson

The Co peviously un hat eondent as properly cage as an aivig alienseeig admissio ue section 22a) of the Act. Respondet did o pove at she s cearlyand beyond a reasonabe dout entited to be admited to the Uite Staes herere, e Coutsustained the chages unde secions 2 l 2a9)Ci)II) and 2 2a)7)Ai)I) of the Act.Responden did not seek ay elief om removal

ccodingly e lowin orde l be nere

Decisio & Oder 2


13/13

. ,

'

ORDER

IT S HEEBY ORDER hat Reponent be RMV to Mexco base ecages uer etons l(a)9)C()I) an 2(a(7)A)(i(I of te Act.

ate: l 0 . 5 " (0

Dei & Ode 3

4 fil B. BronziaIMIGRATION JUGE

esperanza alcaraz-de vasquez, a076 626 660 (bia feb. 18, 2014)

Documents