U.S.

Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office ofthe Clerk

5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 22041

ANASTASIO, VERNON, ESQ. 1221 LOCUST STREET, SUITE 201 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - NYC 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1130 New York, NY 10278

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: JAMES, BERNARD PAGET HEN ...

A 041-792-398

Date of this notice: 4/18/2013

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

DoYUtL cl1/VL)
Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure Panel Members: Cole, Patricia A. Greer, Anne J. Pauley, Roger

Userteam: Docket

Cite as: Bernard Paget Hensley James, A041 792 398 (BIA Apr. 18, 2013)

U.S. Department of Justice

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review

File:

A041 792 398 - Philadelphia, PA

Date:

APR 18 2013

In re: BERNARD PAGET HENSLEY JAMES

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Vernon Anastasio, Esquire

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

The respondent has filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the Immigration Judge's October 16, 2012, decision to change venue in the case from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to New York, New York. To avoid the piecemeal review of the myriad of questions that may arise in the course of proceedings before us, this Board does not ordinarily entertain interlocutory appeals.
See Matter of Avetisyan, 25

I&N Dec. 688, 688-89 (BIA 2012); see also Matter of

Rui-Campuzano, 17 I&N Dec. 108 (BIA 1979). We have, however, on occasion ruled on the

merits of interlocutory appeals where we deemed it necessary to address important jurisdictional questions regarding the administration of the immigration laws, or to address recurring problems in the handling of cases by Immigration Judges. See id; see also, e.g., Matter of Guevara, 20 I&N Dec. 238 (BIA 1990, 1991) ; Matter ofDobere, 20 I&N Dec. 188 (BIA 1990). Given the jurisdictional question presented in this case, we will address the merits of the appeal. Once removal proceedings have been initiated and jurisdiction has vested in the Immigration Court, an Immigration Judge possesses discretionary authority to change venue upon a showing of "good cause" by the moving party. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.20(b); Matter of Rahman, 20 I&N Dec. 480, 482-83 (BIA 1992). In determining whether good cause exists, an Immigration Judge should consider such factors as administrative convenience, the expeditious treatment of the case, the location of witnesses, and the cost of transporting witnesses or evidence to a new location. See Matter of Rahman, supra, at 483; see also Matter of Velasquez, 19 I&N Dec. 377, 382-83 (BIA 1986). In the instant matter, however, the Immigration Judge's order showed no evaluation or balancing of any of the applicable factors. Accordingly, we shall sustain the appeal and return venue to the Philadelphia Immigration Court.
In view of the foregoing, the following orders will be entered.

ORDER: The interlocutory appeal is sustained. FURTHER ORDER: The Immigration Judge's decision dated October 16, 2012, is vacated. FURTHER ORDER: further proceedings. The record is remanded to the Philadelphia Immigration Court for

.>

Cite as: Bernard Paget Hensley James, A041 792 398 (BIA Apr. 18, 2013)

FOR THE BOARD