Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PEREZ-BAEZ, JUAN MELVIN A079-213-261 YORK COUNTY 3400 CONCORD ROAD YORK, PA 17402
A 079-213-261
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case. Sincerely,
DOWU- CtVt.AJ
Donna Carr Chief Clerk
Cite as: Juan Melvin Perez-Baez, A079 213 261 (BIA Aug. 26, 2013)
File:
Date:
AUG
2 6 2013
In re: JUAN MELVIN PEREZ-BAEZ IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS CERTIFICATION1 ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF DHS: . Pro se
Senior Attorney
Jeffrey T. Bubier
CHARGE: Notice: Sec. 237(a)(2)(A)(ii), l&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii)] Convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)] Convicted of aggravated felony under section IOl(a)(43 )(G) of the Act
Sec.
APPLICATION: Continuance
2013, decision. We review findings of fact, including findings as to the credibility of testimony, for clear error, but questions of law, discretion, and judgment, and all other issues in appeals, de novo. 8 C.F.R. 1003.I(d)(3)(i), (ii). The record will be remanded to the Immigration Court. Aliens in removal proceedings have a statutory right to counsel at no expense to the
resident of the United States since November 2003, appeals the Immigration Judge's March 28,
The respondent, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic and a lawful permanent
United States Post Office as undeliverable (1.J. at 2; Tr. at 4). The Immigration Judge took administrative notice that the organization had moved but that the court had not updated the "pro bona list" that it provides to respondents at 2). At that time, the Immigration Judge
indicated that the request he made to a pro bono organization was returned to him by the
See section 240(b)(4)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b){4)(A). On de novo review, we find that the respondent expressed an interest in a continuance. The respondent
Government.
cause under these circumstances. Therefore, the Immigration Judge should have granted a continuance under 8 C.F.R. 1003.29. Accordingly, we find it appropriate to remand this matter
1003. l (c).
To resolve any issues of timeliness, we will consider this matter on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R.
Cite as: Juan Melvin Perez-Baez, A079 213 261 (BIA Aug. 26, 2013)
. 2.;, .&OQGM& ; t
consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision.
Moreover, we note that the Immigration Judge never asked the respondent whether he feared
Cite as: Juan Melvin Perez-Baez, A079 213 261 (BIA Aug. 26, 2013)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
) ) ) )
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
CHARGES:
APPLICATIONS:
None.
ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE The respondent is a 42-year-old, married and separated, male, alien, native, and citizen of the Dominican Republic. who was placed into removal proceedings. The issuance of a Notice to Appear, Form 1-862, served in person on August 13, 2012. He was also served at that time a copy of the pro bono list. Respondent was given two opportunities to find an attorney, the first time on March 4, the second time on March 14. Respondent essentially has had one full month.
In this regard, the respondent indicated that one of the letters he sent out to one of the organizations on the Court's pro bono list was returned with the incorrect address. Apparently, that is correct. The Court has looked at the court's pro bona list,
and apparently that organization, Nationalities Service Center in Philadelphia, has relocated" according to the U.S. Postal Service. The Nationalities Service Center has not contacted the Court, as far as I know, or the Government informing me that they have moved. The Court, nonetheless, went ahead anyway because it has been the Court's very long experience, here at this particular Court, that the Nationalities Service Center is essentially a no-show. It is extraordinarily rare for any attorneys from that organization to appear in court here in York. If the Court sees someone from that organization once every two years in the many thousands of cases, that would be essentially par for course. So instead of having the respondent's detention drag on, the Court was of the firm belief that it was just better to proceed today. The respondent was not going to have pro bona counsel. Now, respondent has conceded the allegations in the Notice to Appear. The Court has sustained both grounds set forth against him, and particularly his aggravated felony theft offense under 101 (a)(43)(G). In this regard, the respondenfs original sentence was a one year probation for his February 1, 2012" Pennsylvania conviction. However, he was resentenced two months later for probation violation, and was sentenced two months to one year confinement. He served a minimum. Because of the resentence elevated the original sentence to one year" that constitutes now an aggravated felony theft offense. The Court has explained to the respondent the Court cannot consider any discretion towards the respondent. The following orders are hereby entered. ORDER
A079-213-261
March 28,
2013
t.d
Respondent is hereby ordered removed from the United States to the Dominican Republic. The appeal date runs to April 29, 2013.
A079-213-261
March 28,
2013
/Isl/
Immigration Judge WALTER A. durlingw on June 3, DURLING
A079-213-261
March 28,
2013