You are on page 1of 5

Chang, Richard W., Esq.

Wasserman, Mancini &Chang


1915 Street., N.W., Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006-0000
Name: PRASAD, KAMLESHWAR
L.b. cgattmcut 00St0c
Executive Ofce fr Imigration Review
8oaro( ootgrattoa4ppeals
upceo(|/eclerk
J!J7Lc0urg8c, 5ttlcZJJJ
0l/t L0urN|, lrgn0 2JJJJ
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel - WAS
500 12th St., SW, Mail Stop 5902
Washington, DC 20536
A 099-681-885
Date of this notice: 12/13/2013
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case.
Enclosure
|DCl MCDDCf5'
L|BB|, PDDBJ.
Sincerely,
DC c f
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
wIllame
U5CI|CD. LOCKBl
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Kamleshwar Prasad, A099 681 885 (BIA Dec. 13, 2013)
u:s. Department of Justice
Executive Offce fr Immigation Review
Decision of the Board of Immigation Appeals
Falls Church, Virginia ZJ
File: A099 681 885 - Arlington, VA
In re: KAMLESHW P PRSAD
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
APPEAL
Date:
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Richard W. Chang, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS:
CHARGE:
Ada L. Berg
Assistat Chief Counsel
OL| l &2013
Notice: Sec. 237(a)(l)(B), l&N Act [8 U.S.C.
122
7(a)(l)(B)] -
In the United States in violation of law
APPLICATION: Reopening; reconsideration; adjustent of status
The respondent, a native and citizen of India, appeals the December 23, 2011, denial of a
motion to reopen ad reconsider seeking adjustent of status under section 245(i) of the
Immigation and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1255(i). The Immigration Judge held that the
respondent did not demonstate prima facie eligibility fr adjustment of status. The appeal will
be dismissed.
The Board reviews a Immigation Judge's fndings of fct fr clear error.
1003.l(d)(3)(i). We review issues of law, discretion, or judgment de novo.
1003 .1 ( d)(3)(ii).
8 C.F.R.
8 C.F.R.
The respondent asserts that he was admitted to the United States on May 11, 2000, and he
retained Earl S. David, Esquire, on Aprl 5, 2001, to fle an application fr labor cerifcation on
his behalf befre the April 30, 2001, "gradfthering" deadline. See section 245(i)(l )(B)(i) of
the Act. The record shows that the labor cerifcation application was fled on July 13, 2001. On
April 22, 2009, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services denied the respondent's
application fr adjustment of status because he could not demonstrate that a labor cerifcation
had been c0 on his behalf on or Dctc PQtI 30, 2001. 88 ld. hc Immigration Ju0gc 0cuIc0
the respondent's renewed application fr adjustent of status on September 29, 2011, ad
ordered his removal. The respondent fled no appeal with the Board. In the motion at issue, the
respondent argued tat the fling deadline of section 245(i)(l)(B)(i) of the Act should be
equitably tolled due to the inefective assistance of N. David.
While the Immigration Judge signed te decision on November 2, 2011, the coversheet
accompanying the decision shows that it was issued on December 23, 2011.
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Kamleshwar Prasad, A099 681 885 (BIA Dec. 13, 2013)

A099 681 885
The respondent has satisfed te procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada,
19 I&N'Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See also Mater of Compean, Bangaly, and J-E-C-,
25 l&N Dec. 1 (A.G. 2009). P applicant fr reopening must fher demonstrate prima facie
eligibility fr the relief sought. INS V. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 ( 1988).
As noted by the Immigation Judge, the respondent has identifed no legal authority
supporing equitable tolling of the deadline of section 245(i)(l)(B)(i) of the Act. The respondent
relies upon Piranej V. Muksey, 516 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2008), which is not binding in this case
asing within the jurisdiction of the United States Cour of Appeals fr the Fourh Circuit. See
Matter of Anselmo, 20 l&N Dec. 25, 31 (BIA 1989) (explaining tat the Boad historically
fllows a cour's precedent in cases arising in that circuit). In any event, in remanding fr fct
fnding ad a deterination of whether Piranej had complied with Matter of Lozada, the cou
declined to address whether inefective assistace of counsel could serve as a basis fr equitable
tolling of the April 30, 2001, gradfthering deadline under section 245(i) of the Act. Piranej,
supra, at 145. Another court has answered this question in the negative by afrming the Boad's
holding that the deadline under section 245(i) operates as a statute of repose, and thus is not
subject to equitable tolling. Ba/am-Chuc V. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1044, 1048-50 (9th Cir. 2008).
Similarly, the Fouh Circuit has held that the principles of equitable tolling do not apply to
statutes such as section 245(i)(l)(B)(i) of the Act "where strict satisfction of a time limit may be
required as a precondition to jurisdiction over a matter." Harris V. Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325,
328 (4th Cir. 2000). Therefre, as the respondent has not shown prima facie eligibilit fr
adjustment of status pursuat to section 245(i), we afrm the denial of his motion to reopen and
reconsider.
Accordingly, the fllowing order is entered.
ORER: The appeal is dismissed.
2
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Kamleshwar Prasad, A099 681 885 (BIA Dec. 13, 2013)
|
" :.
1 s
+
UJJbO UJPJbU ObEP8MbN V UUUJLb
bXbLUJVb bbJLb bK JHMJUHJN KbVJbN
JHMJUHJN LK
bJ NKJH UUJU. UbJ3
P81JNGJN VT 2223
NPUUbKH MLJNJ LH
LHP KJO W.
JbJbJ J U N.W. UUJb
NAUHJNGUN OL

2


l
\

J
' .
.-.(
' `
_,.-
,
` .BLG' OGC 2 2JJ
\ ..
'
E1JG A0-681-885
/

' q
''' ID LDG MBLLGI O'
EKU LbUHNPK
TLLBCDG lB B COQ_ O LDG wI1LLGD OGC1B1OD O LDG J001gIBL1OD UUOgO.
D1B OOC1B1OD 1B DBJ UDJGBB BD BggGBJ 1B LBKOD LOLDG UOBI O
J001gIBC3OD PggOBJB. DG ODCJOBGOCOQ1B O bKM bJK 2b,
NOL1CG O1 PggOBJ BD b8M LJK 2 NOC1CG O LDLI_ BB TLOIDG_ OI
KGgIGBODLBL1VG gIOgGIJ_ GOCOLO, 0UBL DG 1JG w1LD LDG UOBIO O
1001gIBL1QD TggOJB OD OI DGOIG
JDG BggGBJ 0UBL DO BCCO0gBD1GO D_ gIOOT O gB1O GO (JJ.)
LDCJOBG 1B B COg_ O LDG OIBJ dec1e1cn.
LDCJOBG 1B B LIBDBCI1gL O LDG LGBL10OD_ O IGCOIO
YOU BIO gIBDLO ODL| t
'
BUD01 L B DI1G
CO CD1B -:CG 1n B,OIL O _OUI g...

ggOB1Dg COODB G

J 1B gIBDLG ODL1J LO BUD01L B


DI1G 1D OggOB1L1OD LO LDO BggGBJ
CJOBOO 1B B CO__ O CDG
<
O1OGI/OGC1B1OD O CDO J001@IBL1OD UUOgO
CC'
PJJ gBgGIB 11GO w1LD LDG COUIL BDBJJ DG BCCO0gBD1O D_ gIOO
O BOIV1CG UgOD OgOB1Dg COUDBGJ.
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t


.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVEW
IMMIGRATION COURT
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
IN THE MATTER OF
PRASAD, Kamleshwar
In Removal Proceedings
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No: A b1 b
ton to Reopen and Reconsider, it ISM
L DHS does not oppose the motion.
L The Respondent does not oppose the motion.
F response to the motion has not been fled with the cour.
L Good cause has been established HIthe motion.
L The court agrees wit te reasons stated in the opposition to the motion.
L The motion S untimely per . +
Other: ))hs ,: 1wi 1 eC s. t ! .(

z} f
U lga]
h 10
Cvff aft
tS C \ &L.:T
~&
Deadlines:
-:)- 'c y p ...; ae.
l P51 [ r1r1v1tl. f.' rrgs
L The applicatio s) fr relief must be fled by
L The respondent ust comply with DHS biometrics inst ious by

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Tis document was sered by: [ ] Mail [ ] Personal Serice
To: [ ] Alien [ ] F0uc/o Custodia Ofcer [ ] Alien's At [] DHS
Date: By: Cour St f
MW
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t

You might also like