U.S.

Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals

Office of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church. Virginia 20530

OHS/ICE

Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project

1530 James M. Wood Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90015

606 S. Olive Street, 8th Floor

LOS ANGELES, CA 90014

Name: MANZANO-RUIZ, JESUS GREG...

A 206-407-386

Date of this notice: 1 /20/2015

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

DorvtL ct1/lAJ
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk

Enclosure
Panel Members:
Holmes, David B.

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Jesus Gregorio Manzano-Ruiz, A206 407 386 (BIA Jan. 20, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Whitfield, Alisa

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals

Q(fice of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 20530

OHS/ICE
606 S. Olive Street, 8th Floor
LOS ANGELES, CA 90014

ORANGE, CA 92868

Name: MANZANO-RUIZ, JESUS GREG ...

A 206-407-386

Date of this notice: 1/20/2015

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision in the above-referenced case. This copy is being
provided to you as a courtesy.

Your attorney or representative has been served with this

decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1292.S(a). If the attached decision orders that you be
removed from the United States or affirms an Immigration Judge's decision ordering that you
be removed, any petition for review of the attached decision must be filed with and received
by the appropriate court of appeals within 30 days of the date of the decision.
Sincerely,

DOn.JtL ca.AA)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk

Enclosure
Panel Members:
Holmes, David 8.

Userteam:

Cite as: Jesus Gregorio Manzano-Ruiz, A206 407 386 (BIA Jan. 20, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

MANZANO-RUIZ, JESUS GREGORIO

A206-407-386
C/O CUSTODIAL OFFICER
501 THE CITY DRIVE SOUTH

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FaHs Church, Virginia 20530

File:

JAN 2 0 2015

Date:

A206 407 386 - Los Angeles, CA

In re: JESUS GREGORIO MANZANO-RUIZ a.k.a. Gregorio Jesus Ruiz a.k.a. Nancy Webb
a.k.a. Gregorio JesusRuiz Manzano a.k.a. Gregorio Manzano a.k.a. Gregorio J. Manzano
a.k.a. Gregorio Manzano Ruiz a.k.a. Jesus Ruis a.k.a. Gregorio Jesus Ruiz a.k.a. Gregorio

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

APPEAL AND MOTION

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:
ON BEHALF OF OHS:

Alisa R. Whitfield, Esquire

Mary Young
Deputy Chief Counsel

CHARGE:
Notice:

Sec.

2 l 2(a)(6)(A)(i), l&N Act [8 U.S.C. l l 82(a)(6)(A)(i)] Present without being admitted or paroled

The respondent appeals from the Immigration Judge's May 15, 2014, decision finding him
removable as charged and granting him 30 days voluntary departure. Sections 212(a)(6)(A)(i),
240B

of the

Immigration

and Nationality

Act,

U.S.C.

1l82(a)(6)(A)(i),

l 229c.

The Department of Homeland Security C'DHS") has filed a motion to remand. The respondent's
request for a waiver of the filing fee associated with filing the appeal is granted. We will remand
the record for further proceedings and issuance of a new decision.
The respondent appeared pro se at his April 24, 2014, and May 15, 2014, hearings before the
Immigration Judge.

The Immigration Judge determined that the respondent was mentally

competent (l.J. at 1-2). After asking the respondent a series of questions, the Immigration Judge
sustained the removability charge and determined that the only relief that the respondent was
eligible for was voluntary departure (I.J. at 1-3). The Immigration Judge granted the respondent
30 days voluntary departure (l.J. at 3).
The respondent timely appealed and contended that the Immigration Judge erred in denying
cancellation of removal (Respondent's Notice of Appeal at 'iJ 6).

On December 24, 2014, the

DHS filed a motion to remand to allow the Immigration Judge to re-assess the respondent's
mental competency in light of evidence that the respondent has been diagnosed with
psychosis/psychotic disorder, and may be a member of the class certified in Franco-Gonzales

Cite as: Jesus Gregorio Manzano-Ruiz, A206 407 386 (BIA Jan. 20, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Ruiz a.k.a. Gregory J. Ruiz a.k.a. Gregory Jesus Ruiz a.k.a. Gregorio Jesus Ruiz
a.k.a. Gregorio Jesus Manzano a.k.a. Jesus Gregorio Ruiz

A206 407 386

'

'
1
Holder, CV-10-02211 DMG (C.D. Cal. 2011) (C.D. Cal. 2011). The respondent has not
filed a response to the DHS's motiQn to remand. On January 5, 2015, the Board received a
v.

Notice of Appearance filed by counsel who is appearing on behalf of the respondent as a

Qualified Representative provided by the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
Based upon the representations in the DHS's motion to remand, we will grant the motion and
remand the record for further proceedings below, including a re-assessment of the respondent's
counsel, to protect his rights and privileges pursuant to section 240(b)(3) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
1229a(b)(3). See Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 474, 479, 481-83 (BIA 2011) (the test for
determining whether a respondent is competent for purposes of removal proceedings is whether
he has a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings, can consult with his attorney or
representative if he has one, and whether he has a reasonable opportunity to examine and present
evidence and cross-examine witnesses). On remand. the respondent shall also be provided an
opportunity to present any available defenses to the removability charge, and any applications for
relief for which he may be eligible.
ORDER: The DHS's motion to remand is granted.
FURTHER ORDER:

The record is remanded to the Immigration Court for further

proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for entry of a new decision.

FOR THE BOARD

The DHS's motion improperly references the record of the respondent's bond proceedings, and

requests remand for, among other things, the scheduling of a bond hearing in compliance with
the injunction issued in Franco-Gonzales

v.

Holder, 2013 WL 81154323 (C.D. Cal. 2013).

Bond and removal proceedings are to be kept separate. 8 C.F.R. 1003. l 9(d) (consideration by
the Immigration Judge of an application for bond shall be separate and apart from, and shall form
no part of, any removal hearing or proceeding). This order addresses only the issues raised by
the respondent's appeal of the May 15, 2014, decision issued in his removal proceedings.
There is no appeal pending before the Board related to the respondent's bond proceedings.

Cite as: Jesus Gregorio Manzano-Ruiz, A206 407 386 (BIA Jan. 20, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

mental competency, as well as the possible need for safeguards, including the presence of

UNITED STATES DE PARTME NT OF JUSTICE

E XE CUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

May 15, 2014

In the Matter of

JESUS GREGORIO MANZANO-RUIZ

RESPONDENT

)
)
)
)

IN REMOVAL PROCE E DINGS

CHARGES:

Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i), present without being admitted or paroled.

APPLICATIONS:

Voluntary departure.

ON BE HALF OF RESPONDENT: PRO SE

ON BE HALF OF OHS: NATHAN AINA

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

The respondent is a male native and citizen of Mexico. Removal
proceedings were commenced with the issuance of a Notice to Appear dated April 3,
2014, which has been marked and admitted as Exhibit 1. The respondent admitted
allegations 1 and 2 that he is not a citizen of the United States and that he is a native
and citizen of Mexico. With regard to allegations 3 and 4, as to the time, place, and
manner of entry, the respondent bears the burden to establish time, place, and manner
of entry because alienage has been established by his admissions.
The Court notes from the beginning that the respondent is pro se and

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

File: A206-407-386

appears to struggle at times with a chronological history of his presence in the United
States. The Court has taken efforts to structure my sentences in the most simple
manner, has also rescheduled the case to give the respondent time to consult with his

no evidence that the respondent is unable to understand the Court once the Court's
questions are stated in the simplest of manners. The respondent was able to
understand the questions regarding his place of birth. The Court asked further
questions about whether or not he was married and had children. The respondent was
responsive.
The respondent appeared to understand that the hearing was to decide
whether or not he was able to remain in the United States. Given his answers to
questions, specifically his explanation that he had been in the United States and
returned to Mexico, and upon returning to the United States, he had at some time in
1989 signed letters by Immigration officials, he understood that the purpose of that
process related to today's hearing having to do with his ability to remain in the United
States.
The respondent's criminal history was, he appears to be confused as to
whether or not he had been convicted, but he does understand that he has been
arrested and investigated by the police. Therefore, the Court finds at this time that the
respondent is able to proceed pro se and that he understands the purpose of the
hearing and he is able to respond to questions of the Court relevant to his Immigration
history.
With regard to his Immigration history, the respondent believed that his
first entry was in 1980, but that he departed and last entered in 1989. The respondent
believes at that time he signed some papers to remain in Mexico, to live in Mexico. The

A206-407-386

May 15, 2014

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

family. The respondent testified he has a brother in the United States. The Court finds

respondent has not established his time, place, and manner of entry into the United
States. Therefore, having established alienage through his admissions, the Court finds
that the allegations 3 and 4 and sustains the charge that he is present without being

The respondent stated that he is single, he has no children, and he has no

fear of returning to Mexico. The respondent was arrested, by his own admissions, 1Oto
15 times, but he does not believe that he has been convicted of any crime, though the
Government did report arrests and a criminal history include trespass, possessing
burglary tools, drunk in public, petty theft, exhibiting a deadly weapon, possession of a
deadly weapon, a dangerous weapon, and a failure to appear. None of these appear to
be aggravated felonies and there is no evidence that he is unable to establish good
moral character at this time.
The respondent is ordered to leave the United States voluntarily on or
before June 16, or any extensions of time that may be granted..

Please see the next page for electronic

signature
LORRAINE J. MUNOZ
Immigration Ju_dge

A206-407-386

May 15, 2014

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

admitted or paroled because he has not established anything to the contrary.

/Isl/
Immigration Judge LORRAINE J.
munozl on September 23,

MUNOZ

2014 at 7:04

PM GMT

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

A206-407-386

May 15, 2014