Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Justice
Executive Office for lmmigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Q[/ice of the Clerk
51071.eeshurg Pike. S1111e 1000
Falls C/111rch l'1rg1ma 20530
A 047-224-961
Enclosed is a copy or the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,
l'>cvtL CfA./Vl_.)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Mullane, Hugh G.
Userteam: Docket
A 047-224-961
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
the attached decision orders that you be
decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1292.5(a).
removed from the United States or arfirms un Immigration Judge's decision ordering that you
be removed, any petition for review of the attached decision n1ust be riled with and received
by the appropriate court of appeals within 30 days of the elate or the decision.
Ir
Sincerely,
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Mullane, Hugh G.
Userteam:
Cite as: Tyron Canute Francis, A047 224 961 (BIA June 10, 2015)
Date:
JUN 1020J5
MOTION
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Sandra Greene, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS:
Andrew V. Bonic
Assistant Chief Counsel
CHARGE:
Notice: Sec.
237(a)(2)(A)(iii), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)] Convicted of aggravated felony under section 10 l (a)(43)(U) of the Act
(withdrawn)
Lodged: Sec.
237(a)(2)(A)(iii), l&N Act [8 U.S.C. l 227(a)(2)(A)(iii)] Convicted of aggravated felony under section l O l (a)(43 )(G) of the Act
Removal proceedings before the Immigration Judge in this matter were completed at the
Worcester County Detention Center in Snow Hill, Maryland (see OPPM No. 04-06). The
Immigration Judge conducted the hearings there remotely from the Immigration Court in
Baltimore, Maryland via video conference pursuant to section 240(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. l 229a(b)(2)(A)(iii).
By its content, the respondent's motion is in the nature of a motion to reconsider, which would
also be considered untimely. See section 240(c)(6)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(b)(2); see
also kfatter of Cerna, 20 I&N Dec. 399, 402 n.2 (BIA 1991) (discussing the characteristics of
motions to reopen and motions to reconsider).
Cite as: Tyron Canute Francis, A047 224 961 (BIA June 10, 2015)
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Court for further proceedings
consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision.
2
Cite as: Tyron Canute Francis, A047 224 961 (BIA June 10, 2015)
The respondent requests reconsideration of his removability in light of the decision of the
Unhed States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Omargharib v. Holder, 775 F.3d 192
(4th Cir. 2014). In that case, which was decided after the Board's previous decision in this case,
the court applied the categorical approach set forth in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575
(1990) and clarified in Descamps v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013) to detennine that an
alien's Virginia grand larceny conviction was not an aggravated felony under section 101(a)(43)
of the Act.
The respondent asserts that, applying the framework set forth in
Omargharib v. Holder, supra, his 2012 conviction for conspiracy - theft over $10,000 no longer
constitutes an aggravated felony. As the respondent has presented evidence of a subsequent
change in law that may fundamentally impact his removability, we will reopen the proceedings
on our own motion. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(a); see also Matter of G-D-, 22 l&N Dec. 1132
(BIA 1999); Matter of J-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 976 (BIA 1997). On remand, the Immigration Judge
may receive any additional evidence she deems appropriate to the fuJl resolution of this matter,
including additional or substituted charges of removability, if any. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.30 and
1240. lO(e). Accordingly, the record will be remanded to the Immigration Judge for further
consideration of the respondent's removability in light of the change in law.