U.S.

Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board ofImmigration Appeals
Office of the Clerk
5 /07 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church. Virginia 22041

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - CHI

525 West Van Buren Street
Chicago, IL 60607

Name: ZITLATL-PEREZ, ROBERTO

A 200-143-102

Date of this notice: 11/27/2015

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

{!l1/Vt)

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Grant, Edward R.
O'Leary, Brian M.
Guendelsberger. John

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
Cite as: Roberto Zitlatl-Perez, A200 143 102 (BIA Nov. 27, 2015)

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

Mazariegos, Cynthia, Esq.

Grupo REU Law
5054 W. Irving Park Rd
Chicago, IL 60641

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A200 143 I 02 - Chicago, IL

Date:

In re: ROBERTO ZITLATL-PEREZ

NOV 2 7 2015

APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Cynthia Mazariegos, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS: Robin J. Rosche
Assistant Chief Counsel
CHARGE:
Notice: Sec.

212(a)(6)(A)(i), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. l182(a)(6)(A)(i)] Present without being admitted or paroled

APPLICATION: Voluntary departure

The respondent appeals from the February 5, 2014, decision of the Immigration Judge
denying the respondent's request for the privilege of voluntary departure under section 240B(a)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229c(a). The appeal will be sustained and
the record will be remanded to the Immigration Judge to issue an order affording the respondent
the opportunity to voluntarily depart the United States.
The Board reviews an Immigration Judge's findings of fact, including findings as to the
credibility of testimony, under the "clearly erroneous" standard. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i). The
Board reviews questions of law, discretion, and judgment and all other issues in appeals from
decisions of Immigration Judges de novo. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(ii). An Immigration Judge
may set and extend time limits for filing of applications and related documents and responses,
and, if an application is not filed within the time set by the Immigration Judge, the opportunity to
file that application shall be deemed waived. 8 C.F.R. 1003.3 l(c).
In this matter, the respondent sought pre-conclusion voluntary departure under section
240B(a) of the Act. Although the respondent initially indicated that he was willing to waive
appeal, as required in order to be granted pre-conclusion voluntary departure, the respondent
subsequently gave non-responsive answers when questioned by the Immigration Judge regarding
whether the respondent was waiving appeal. As a consequence, the Immigration Judge
determined that the respondent had not waived appeal and, therefore, did not qualify for
voluntary departure under section 240B(a) of the Act.
On appeal, the respondent asserts that he understood he had to waive appeal and was waiving
appeal, but allowed superfluous thoughts to derail his train of thought. This Board concludes
that the record, while demonstrating that the respondent did not focus on the issue at hand when
Cite as: Roberto Zitlatl-Perez, A200 143 102 (BIA Nov. 27, 2015)

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

A200 143 102

ORDER: The appeal is sustained.

FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded for the Immigration Judge to issue an order
granting the respondent the privilege of voluntary departure under section 240B(a) of the Act.

2
Cite as: Roberto Zitlatl-Perez, A200 143 102 (BIA Nov. 27, 2015)

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

repeatedly questioned as to whether he waived appeal, does not demonstrate that the respondent
retracted his initial knowing and voluntary agreement to waive appeal (Tr. at 38, 40-42). As
such, the respondent's appeal is sustained and his request for pre-conclusion voluntary departure
will be granted. There are no other issues properly before this Board or the Immigration Judge.
The record wil be remanded for the Immigration Judge to issue an order allowing the respondent
to voluntarily depart the United States, no more than 180 days from the date of the new order,
along with the corresponding advisals concerning the consequences of not departing as
promised. Accordingly, the following orders will be entered.

'

File: A200-143-102

February 5, 2014

In the Matter of

ROBERTO ZITLATL-PEREZ

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

RESPONDENT

CHARGES: Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act - alien not
admitted or paroled into the United States.

I APPLICATIONS:

Section 240B(a) - Voluntary departure

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: PRO SE

ON BEHALF OF OHS: ROBIN ROSCHE

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

I. BACKGROUND
The respondent is a 33-year-old male, a native and citizen of Mexico who
arrived in the United States at or near an unknown place and an unknown date. He was
not then admitted or paroled after inspection by an Immigration officer. The Department
of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings by issuing a Notice to Appear, and
served on respondent in person on October 18, 2011. See Exhibit 1. The Notice to

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

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

Appear charges respondent as removable from the United States pursuant to Section
212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act - alien not admitted or paroled into

On June 5, 2013 at a hearing at the Chicago Immigration Court at 9:00

a.m., the respondent appeared without counsel. At the hearing, the respondent
requested more time to speak to an attorney. He stated that he was about 33 years old,
single, he did not have children, his parents are not United States citizens or lawful
permanent residents, no one had petitioned for him in order for him to obtain legal
status in the United States, and he entered on or about October 2000. Also, the
respondent had been arrested for traffic violations at least four times for not having a
driver's license. The Court continued the case until February 5, 2014 at 1 :00 p.m. at the
Chicago Immigration Court.
At the hearing on February 5, 2014, the respondent appeared without
counsel. He admitted the factual allegations contained in the Notice to Appear and
conceded removability under Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the INA. See Exhibit 1. On the
basis of the pleadings and the examination of the charges, the Court found that the
respondent was removable as charged. The Court designated Mexico as the country of
removal, as it is the country of citizenship of the respondent. Therefore, by clear and
convincing evidence, the Court finds that it has established alienage and removability.
The Court explained to the respondent at both hearings that the only relief
that the Court believed that the respondent may request, or is eligible for, is pre
conclusion voluntary departure. At the end of the hearing, the respondent stated that he
did want to request the privilege of leaving the United States voluntarily rather than
being ordered removed. The Court explained the consequences and penalties of not
complying with the Court's order. The respondent stated that he would comply with the

A200-143-102

February 5, 2014

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

the United States.

Court's order and he understood that he would have to waive his right to appeal all
issues. The Court dictated a decision granting voluntary departure. However, after

waive his right to appeal. Therefore, the Court finds that he is not eligible for voluntary
departure and that he would not comply with the Court's order, even if it were to reissue
that order. So therefore, since the respondent is not eligible for any other relief under
the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Court will order that the respondent be removed
from the United States.
ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent be removed to Mexico on the
charges on the Notice to Appear.

Please see the next page for electronic

signature

A200-143-102

VIRGINIA PEREZ-GUZMAN
Immigration Judge

February 5, 2014

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

rendering its decision, the respondent refused to accept the Court's order as final and

.. .
.,-,

/Isl/
Immigration Judge VIRGINIA PEREZ-GUZMAN

A200-143-102

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

perezv on July 1, 2014 at 8:03 PM GMT

February 5, 2014