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

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - LOS

606 S. Olive Street, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014

Name: KHALATYAN, GAGIK

A 078-665-900
Date of this notice: 6/19/2015

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

DcnrtL

t1.AA)

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Holmes, David B.

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/

Cite as: Gagik Khalatyan, A078 665 900 (BIA June 19, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Levant, John M.
Affordable Advocates
330 Arden Ave Suite 210
Glendale, CA 91203

U.S. Department of Justice

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 20530

File: A078 665 900 - Los Angeles, CA

Date:

In re: GAGIKKHALATYAN

JUN

t 92015

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Jolm M. Levant, Esquire

The respondent has filed an interlocutory appeal from the Immigration Judge's May 6, 2015,
decision granting the Department of Homeland Security's ("DRS") motion for a change of venue.
We find it appropriate to exercise our jurisdiction over this case and address the merits of this
appeal. On May 4, 2015, the DHS filed a motion requesting a change of venue to the San
Francisco Immigration Court citing the closer proximity of the respondent's residence to the San
Francisco Immigration Court. The Immigration Judge granted the DHS's motion on May 6,
2015, only two days after its filing. On appeal, the respondent argues that he did not have a
reasonable opportunity to respond to the DHS's motion. The respondent further provides that he
would prefer that his removal proceedings remain in the Los Angeles Immigration Court,
because he has already retained counsel in the Los Angeles area that is familiar with his native
Armenian language and culture and available for a reasonable fee. In light of the foregoing, we
will remand the record to the Immigration Judge to consider the respondent's opposition to the
DHS's motion for a change of venue. See Matter of Rahman, 20 l&N Dec. 480 (BIA 1992);
8 C.F.R. 1003.20(b) (providing that a motion to change of venue may be granted only after the
other party has been given notice and an opportunity to respond to the motion to change venue).
Accordingly, the interlocutory appeal will be sustained and the record will be remanded to the
Immigration Judge for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing decision.
ORDER: The interlocutory appeal is sustained, and the record is remanded to the
Immigration Court for further proceedings.

FARD

Cite as: Gagik Khalatyan, A078 665 900 (BIA June 19, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS