Hirot, Malle M.

Hirot &Associates, LLLC

736 Bishop Street, #02
Honolulu, HI 96813
Name: ROBLES-UINTANO, HERMINIO
.b. cgaMc00J08tcc
Executive LOfr Iigation Review
Board of Immigation Appeals
Ofce of the Clerk
S/07 Lb1r Pik, Suie 1
Fall Churh, l'rgla 2201
OHS/ICE Ofce of Chief Counsel - HON
595 Ala Moana Boulevar
Honolulu, HI 96813-999
A074351-62
jate of this notice: 6/9/2011
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and orer in the above-referenced cae.
Enclosure
Pael Members:
Grant, Edwad R.
Sincerely,
Donna LM
Chief Cler
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
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
@
U.S. Deparet of Justce
EOf Im8
Douof0BMImgo Ap
F@C VtTI
Ftle: A074 351 862 - Honol M Da:
r: HO ROBLS-Q
ROVA POEIGS
AP
ON BE OF RSPNDE: Me Iot E
ON BE OF DHS:
CHGE:
He NKnege
As s Che C
J -9ZD1J
Notc: Se. 212(a)(9)(C)(i)( , IN A [8 U.S.C. 1182{a){9)(C)(i)l] -Ae
oree re w e wou b at
Se. 212(a)(6)A)), lN Ac (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)A)()]
wu b amt e or pale
APPLCATON: Ccl on of rov ude son 2A)
Dof H Se (HS") apf t deon of t Imo
Judg dae Fera 10, 2010, gtng te respnde's applcon fr ccl aon of
r u son 2AXI) of the Igon a Naon P (the "A), 8 U.S4C
t29XtV Te ap wb ds.
We rete fndg of f, idi t deton of cD, me b t I gon
Judge ue a "cey erneu s. 8 C.F.R 103. l(dX3)(). ot ise ic
w te pe he m t rle b of pof a ise of dscron a ree
ude a 0n std. 8 C.F.R.
I003.l
(d)(3)(t). Te reonde smt e hs aplcon
a M 11,Z 3,a t aplco Mgve b pvo of t R I A (.J. M
3-;E. 4). Se Mato/SB,2ID. 42(I20). Te rponde a hs Qmwe
dedto 0cll ws(.J. M 4).
We a not pe tt te Imon Judge's f of a cley er nes.
Fur we adop a aft Igon Jge's le cnclon fr t r s
te Fen 2010 desion. Se Matr of Bubo, 20 GDe. 872, 874 (IA 194).
1 Te rnde Ua ne a c of Mec (.J. a 1-2; 1 )
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
A074 jSJ 862
Te ronde h el hs go mr ch. So 2AbXI)) of t A.
We.the rpnde do h a sbsttia crmina Mrr ad a rsgorder isse
ag h te ce we dsa t rior w l dsle (J. M 6;
E. S(-M). Te Imon Judge foud t te invduas who h fe the cmpt
a t ronde b ntle c Mm(.I. M6; S(). Fuo, t mM
t le to t M on the more sous che ocr mor t 1 S ye ao ad the
Imgon Judg fnd t rde's elon f hs lk of cpail i te aeon
to 0ce"ble ad pee (.J. a 67; Tr. a 66, 81-82, 85-88, 93-94). Te on other plic
recd is miseor volon of t Hwimotr vece ad fhi la whc we aee
w te Igon Judg do not spr a f of a lack of go mor chaa (.I. M6;
B. S(; Tr. M899).
Te rnde h a me h be Wel t bs qug re a Un St
c s a seg, wod s eona a ee 0W hdsh Bhe i
ro fm t Un Ste (=J. M 7-11; 4).2 Seon 240AXI)() of te A. Te
sp ad sg would ir te loss of irll eoc rec w t reva
of te rne, a te spous relie on te rnden's at to provde childc
ad spple ime to me t hg cst of l f i H (J. a 8-9; Tr. M33-36,
40-2, 1 OS.). Te sps h a demon he iyto 0to oter jsco i
t Une St or Mec d to a l of wor opre i te brde M h a
age ad ne to cmplete the requisite ye of employt w te se of Hwi to ve
h rnpo a he ne to m h n ccon (.J. M9; S(U; Tr. M
34-37, 46-8). Te rnde h a ele t b b w a sg woud sf e
a sgc eao of t ps psoloc dsw b t r (J. M
9-11; E. S(Q, S(); Tr. M26-32, S 1-52). We @wt te Imgon Judg t t h
irb the rde's qnre would eet csm se w a
f Nrve fm te Un Sta.
We M 0 pe t t Ig Judge's f of a de er n.
The cmv hadsp icrby the rnde's sous ad sdg, epl y i lig of
t su's uq fc a le obligon to t ste of Hi rs t c to t
nar ow s of c i wc te econ a el uus h sd is me.
SeMato O, 23 J . 47, 470 (I 20). Teor t Igon Jdge's
f
t te rponde me te hdsp sd $for Mson 240A)(l)) of te Ac
i cr f t rn ide b the Imon Jdge i t Fer 2010 deson.
' 1Igon Judge deterine t the rnde b deon te ree phic
a l of disic cco nee to b eig"ble fr cJon of
rov (.I. M5-7). Seon 240A(b)l)A), (b)l)(C, (d)(l) of te A. Te Igo Judge
as de t t rn's bologc dae, w l w h m i t
cne Un St would not sfa eon a ee u1s hp w the
rev o t re (. M 7; Tr. M99103). Nehe pa b cn t mton
ap a te.deion Mwae.
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
A074351867
Acrdgy, te flow order wbe ent
ORE 10DHS appe i ds.

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

.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMIGRTION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRTION COURT
Honolulu, Hawaii
File A 074 351 862 February 10, 2010
In the Matter of
HERINIO ROBLES-QUINTAO,
)
)
)
}
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
CHARGES:
ResponOenL
Section 212(a) (9) (C) [1) (II) of the Inigration and
Nationality Act -- alien ordered removed who
enters without Being aON1tteO;
Section 212(a) (6) (A) (i) of the Imigration and
Nationality Act -- alien present without admission
or parole.
APPLICATIONS: Section 240A(b) (1) of the Imigration and
Nationality Act -- cancellation of removal for
certain non-permanent residents; voluntary
OepaItuLu B
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
Maile Hirota, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY:
Heith Kaneshige, Esquire
Assistant Chief Counsel
Honolulu, Hawaii
ORL DE[JJON OF THE IMIGRATION JUDGE
The respondent is a 33-year-old, married, native and
citizen of Mexico. The Department alleges that he arrived at or
near San Ysidro, California, on an unknown date and was not
aditted or paroled by a customs and Border Protection Officer9
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

,
The Department further alleged that on January 23, 1997, the
respondent was ordered removed from the United States under
Section 24 1 of the Act; and that he entered the United States
without being admitted after April 5, 1997 and again without
adission or paroled by legacy Inigration and Naturalization
Service.
Proceedings were conenced with the filing of a Notice
to Appear with the Imigration Court at Honolulu on November 10,
2008. Se Exhibit 1. The respondent admitted allegations 1, 2,
3 and 4 , but denied allegations D 6 and 7. Respondent conceded
being present without admission or parole but contested the
charge regarding reentry after a deportation order. Respondent
designated Mexico should that become necessary.
De individual hearing was conducted on February 10,
2010. Exhibits 1 through and including 7 were received. The
Department reported that background checks were completed and
there was nothing to report other than the conviction and arrest
record already in the file.
The respondent and his current wife, Janet Robles, both
testified in the English language. There was nothing in their
demeanor that detracted from their credibility.
Turning to LDe BBue of removability, the Court finds
that respondent is present without admission or parole based upon
his admissions and testimony. Regarding the alternate charge,
the Department filed at Exhibit 2, the Record of Deportable,
A 074 351 B62
Z
February 10, 2010
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
M

Inadmissible Alien. This record states that voluntary departure
was granted with an alternate order of deportation by an
Imigration Judge on September 23, 1996. It explains that
respondent appeared on a surrender notice on April 4, 1997 and
was "self-deported" on AQL11 5, 1997. The Department was also
able to substantiate this through exhibits in the record showing
the facts regarding respondent
'
s voluntary departure order from
Imigration Judge John C. Williams. Moreover, respondent
explained hat he was very young at the time, that his mother
hired the attorney that represented him at the time, and that
respondent did not realize the date by which he was supposed to
leave the country. Therefore, both charges of removability are
sustained.
After the respondent returned to Mexico, respondent
testified that after two or three weeks he returned back to the
United States and has basically lived on the island of Maui in
the State of Hawaii ever since.
STATENENT U ThE LAW
At Exhibit 4 the respondent has filed the application
on the Form EOIR-42B. Therefore, the respondent supplemented the
application. See Exibits 5, 6, 7. In reviewing this case, the
Court has considered Board decisions regarding other respondents
from Mexico who have applied for cancellation of removal for
certain non-permanent residents. See, Matter of Recinas, 23 I&N
Dec. 467 (BIA 2002); Matter of Andazola, 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA
A 074 351 862
J
February 10, 2010
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
O

, .

2002) 1 Matter Monreal, 23 I&N Dec. 56. (BIA 2001) .1

One of the qualifying relatives in this case is the
minor daughter of respondent's current wife. This 11-year-old
child, Jamie Kwiatkowski, although though not adopted would be a
"child" for purposes of qualifying as a relative with regard to
establishing "exceptional and Extremely unusual hardship" for the
cancellation of removal. ' Matter C1 Po|i}l Gutierrez, 25
I&N Dec. 148 (BIA 2009) .
,In the alternative respondent requests conclusionary
voluntary departure.
FINDINGS OF FACT; CONCLUSIONS OF LH
This case falls within the RE ID Act of 2005
regarding the burden of proof. In this case the Court finds that
the respondent and his wife provided essentially credible
testimony. In addition, they have provided many documents to
support the claim including supporting docuents such as those
referenced in the instructions to the application for
cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for certain non-
permanent residents.
Turning first to the question of physical presence in
the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10
years inediately preceding the date of such application, the
At Exhibit 5, counsel for respondent filed a Pre-Hearing
Statement which summarizes respondent's arguments regarding the
applicability of these cases to the facts in respondent's
situation.
A 0'4 351 bbZ
4
February 10, 2010
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
m

respondent testified credibly about returning to the United
States very shortly after the "self-deportation". See Exhibit 5,
Pages 18, 19, 20. Moreover, respondent hs provided a letter
from Helen Ilin, at Exhibit 5, Tab H. The letter is notarized.
In the letter the author states that she lives on Maui and owns a
furniture store on Maui. The author states that she rented an
apartment to respondent's mother Marcelina, in approximately 1992
on Maui and knows that the respondent moved to Maui approximately
one year ater and lived with his mother until 1997 when she was
diagnosed with cancer and decided to move back to Mexico. The
author states that the respondent moved in with her family and
lived on their property until August 2003, when he moved out to
live with Lorrie. The Court finds that this letter is consistent
with other evidence and is of high probative value.
Respondent was able to show through arrest records on
Maui, trough birth certificates from children born on Maui,
letters from other friends, tax records, et cetera, that he has
the requisite physical presence in the United States for a
continuous period of not less than 10 years imediately preceding
the date of the application, which was initially filed with this
Court on May 28, 2009. Respondent is also not barred by Section
240A(d) based upon the evidence of record including respondent's
testimony, the documentation, and the testimony of respondent's
wife.

Turning to the question of respondent has been
A 074 351 862
b
February 10, 2010
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
W
(

a person of good moral charactr during this period, respondent
has faced an uphill battle because of his arrest record.
Respondent has filed a numer of letters from friends attesting
to his good character. The respondent took a great deal of time
to explain the circumstances of the various arrests on his
record. Respondent has, with regard to the most serious arrest,
provided evidence at Exhibit 5, Tab K that one of the
complainants, Vanessa Ahyen, has a serious conviction record of
her own. aespondent has also filed at Exhibit D Tab L an order
dissolving the temporary restraining order for protection
regarding respondent's first wife, Lorrie Robles. The Court l5
satisfied with respondent's explanation about the events
regarding these two incidents.
Moreover, respondent's current wife, Janet h. Robles,
testified that during the time she has known the respondent, he
has been a person of good character and they have not experienced
any problems during their marriage. Respondent has also
explained his arrest for various traffic violations on Maui.
Respondent has acknowledged anunderstanding now of the fishing
regulations on Maui and this is with regard to his most recent
citation.
In addition, after hearing evidence regarding the
misconduct of respondent's brother, Marco Robles, the Court
inquired further to make a determination as to whether the
respondent's moral character was tainted by association with his
R 4 JD1 bbZ

February 10, 2010

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
lh
(-
brother. After hearing the respondent's testimony and that of
his wife, the Court finds that it is satisfied that respondent's
brother is the person who lacks good character but that the
respondent is different from Marco and is neither a troublemaker
nOL B 1gDTOT OT 0TUDXBTO. D su, the Court is satisfied that
the respondent has met his burden of proof to show good moral
character during the requisite period.
There does not appear to be a conviction for any
of tense whch would render the respondent ineligible under
Section 240A (b) (1) (C) of the Act.
Next we turn to the question of whether any of the
qualifying relatives would experience exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship if the application is denied. The Court has
been informed that respondent's U.S. citizen child Alma Robles,
is in the physical custody of her mother, the respondent's ex
wife, Lorrie Robles. The child has a close relationship with her
father but most recently the child and mother have moved from
Hawaii to Idaho. The date of divorce in this relationship was
July 24, 2008. Although the respondent does provide child
support for this child, in reviewing the entire record, the Court
finds that the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for
this child is not established. This is primarily because the
hardship suffered would be similar to that sumered in other
families where there is a divorce and a separation. Although
respondent argues that his ex-wife would not allow the child to
A 074 351 862
7
February 10, 2010
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

4
visit him if he is in Mexico, the respondent may be able to have
recourse regarding that from the family court.
Turning next to the hardship level to respondent's
spouse, Jaet Robles, the Court finds that respondent has met the
high buden of proof to show eceptional and extremely unusual
hardship. This is because the respondent's wife is a U.S.
citizen who does not speak Spanish and has lived in Hawaii for a
long time. During recent years she has worked for the State of
Hawaii as .a psychiatric nurse and primarily at the Maui Memorial
Medical Center. Respondent has provided strong evidence of
financial hardship to the spouse if the application is denied.
This is an important aspect that has been well documented in the
budget provided at Exhibit 5, Tab U. In addition to the budget
which shows only about $300 left after debts are paid and
expenses are paid, respondent and his wife live free of rent
because of her relationship with a landlord who owns several
properties and who uses the respondent's wife as a informal
management representative. Respondent's wife collects the rents
and takes requests from other tenants for repairs, which the
respondent then performs. However, this relationship could end
at anytime since i is at the whim of the landlord. For example,
1 the [ICpeI1Q is to be SCJU then the LR1JQ wCu1U have to finU
alternate shelter. Given the high cost of living on Maui and
looking at the budget, it is difficult to see how the
respondent's wife would be able to do this. In addition to her
A 074 351 862

February 10, 2010

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
W
YM W

( .
full time job, she also works part time at an elderly care home
called Hale Makua on Maui on a per diem part time basis. This
means that she has one full time job, one part time job, in
addition to the part time responsibilities for her landlord. She
has also established that she is still in debt for educational
costs related to her nursing degree.
Finally, there are exhibits which show that
respondent's wife must work for at least 10 years for the State
of Hawaii in order for her retirement to vest. Since she is OZ

years of age, this is an important consideration. Although

respondent's wife has testified that she would move to Mexico if
her husband was moved and unable to come back to the United
States, she has significant financial concerns about the ability
to do thdt. Unlike many cases, this is d case in which the
spouse testified that she has spent some time and effort in
trying to find a way to live in a border town if her husband is
removed. For various reasons explained during the proceedings
related to job availability and violence on the border towns,
this does not look [IOB1S1Dg from her subjective point of view.
Financial considerations are not SU111C1DT to show the
requisite hardship, DU1 there are other hardships lD this case
related to respondent's wife, Janet. She has her own history of
suicidal tendencies from a young dQ. She has described a
serious level of mentdl illness in her family's history regarding
her mother and two siblings. Moreover, her daughter, Jamie, age
A 074 351 862
. ,F,,
9
February 10, 2010
. W . 7 .FR + W W -T M: W

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
0
(

11 is also showing mental illness issues. This is documented at
Exhibit 5, Tab Q. Respondent's wife has explained that toward
the beginning of her marriage to the respondent, there was a
transitional period in which her daughter was acting out. A
child psychiatrist did an evalation and the diagnosis was
depression. The child was placed on various medications and as
part of the plan, the respondent, as the stepfather, was
mentioned. Although the child is no longer medication, the
respondent.s wife as a nurse whose speciality is psychiatric
conditions, has been monitoring the child and sees improvements
related in part to the child's relationship with the respondent
as a stepfather.
If the application is denied, the impact on
respondent's wife would, therefore, be financial, professional
and related to loss of her employent in a field where she feels
that she excels, another disruption to the stepchild's progress
with regard to the depression, and the Court observed that
through the respondent's wife's demeanor, that she is sincere in
her relationship with the respondent through this marriage. She
appears to rely on him for childcare, to help her run the
household since she is working such long hours at variab
.
le times
of the day, and for their own close personal relations.
It does appear that although respondent's wife is
eligible to apply for a visa for the respondent, that the
respondent would not be able to reinigrate through a visa for
A 074 351 862
IU
February 1 0, 2010
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
W

many years. This has to do with the history of the deportation

in 1997.
Finally, we turn to the step daughter. The Court has
heard testimony that the child's father is a convicted sex
offender and the respondent has provided at Exhibit 5, Tab R, the
criminal record of Jamie's bioiogical father, James Reese. This
child has two older stepbrothers but they are adults and one
lives in Japan and one lives in ColoradoV Other than hG mother,
it appear that the child's primary family relationship is with
the respondent and also with her other stepsister, Alma. See
Exhibit 5, Tabs C, P. If the application is denied and the child
goes to Mexico at age 11, with her diagnosed depression and with
the inability to speak Span1sh, it appears that the situation
would be outside of the normal consequences of removal of a
stepparents and would rise to the level of exceptional and
extremely unusual. This child has been raised on the island of
Maui and has only spent two hours in Tijuana, Mexico with her
mother some years ago on a vacation. Given the child's
background, if what her mother says is true, and upheaval such as
moving to Mexico with all the financial, cultural and other
changes, would be highly detrimental. The Court, therefore,
comes to the conclusion that the respondent has met his burden of
proof with regard to the level of hardship to his stepchild,
Jaie.
Turning to the question of discretion, the Court did
A 074 351 bbZ
11
February 10, 2010
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
..
B

@
,
.
.
1 ,

have some concerns but after listening to the responde

n
t's
1es1imony@ the Court finds that he appears to be sincere,
hardworking, and attempting to make a life with his current wife
whom he describes as being more understanding and having a level
of maturity that is beneficial to him.
.
It does appear that
despite the arIest record, that the application may be granted as
a matter of discretion.
In addition, in reviewing the travel alert from the
United Sttes Department of State regarding violence along the
U. S./Mexico border, the ourt takes into consideration the effect
1DI this would Dave on the respondent and his family if the
application is denied as a matter of discretion. Respondent has
a poor relationship with his abusive father who lives in Mexico.
Respondent's mother has already passed away. Respondent
testified that his ties to family members in Mexico are very weak
because he essentially has not lived with them for a long time
and did not have a good relationship with most of them.
Accordingly, the following orders shall be entered:
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appliction for
cancellation of removal for certain non-permanent residents is
Judge
February l ZJ
@

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
O
W

,.
'
..
CERTIFICTE PAGE
I hereby certify that the attached proceeding
before DAYNA BEAER in the matter of:
HERMINIO ROBLES-QUINTAO
A 074 351 862
Honolulu, Hawaii
was held as herein appears, and that this is the original

transcript thereof for the file of the Executive Office for

Imigration Review.
[
Doreen Hodder, (Transcriber)
Deposition Services, Inc.
6245 Executive Boulevard
Rockville, Maryland 20852
(301) 881-3344
HICD 22. 2010
(Completion Date)
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