You are on page 1of 5

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 2204/

Name: B.

,c

-F

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel HLG


1717 Zoy Street
Harlingen, TX 78552

-418

Date of this notice: 12/13/2016

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

DonrtL CWV\.)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Adkins-Blanch, Charles K.
O'Connor, Blair
Grant, Edward R.

- ,:
'.! . ".__
;

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit


www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
Cite as: C-J-B-F-, AXXX XXX 418 (BIA Dec. 13, 2016)

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

Frost-Tift, Joel, Esq.


Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project
1530 James Wood Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90015

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Decision of the Board of Inunigration Appeals

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A

418 - Harlingen, TX

Date:

-F-

In re:

DEC 1 3 2016

APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Joel Frost-Tift, Esquire
APPLICATION: Reopening
The respondent, a native and citizen of Honduras, was ordered removed in absentia on
September 24, 2014. The respondent filed a motion to reopen on February 16, 2016, the
Immigration Judge denied the motion on March 10, 2016, and the respondent timely appeals.
The Department of Homeland Security (OHS) has filed no response to the appeal. The appeal
will be sustained.
Upon de novo review, in light of the totality of circumstances presented in this case,
including that the respondent was approximately 14 years old and under the control of his mother
at the time if his hearing, and considering the absence of any OHS opposition to the respondent's
motion to reopen and appeal, we will sustain the appeal and allow the respondent another
opportunity to appear for a hearing. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.23(b)(l); Matter ofJ-J-, 21 l&N Dec.
976 (BIA 1997).
Accordingly, the following order will be entered.
ORDER: The appeal is sustained and the record is remanded for further proceedings

consistent with the foregoing opinion.


.,

Cite as: C-J-B-F-, AXXX XXX 418 (BIA Dec. 13, 2016)

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

,I

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMMIGRATION COURT
2009 W. JEFFERSON AVE, STE 300
HARLINGEN, TX 78550

IN THE MATTER OF

DATE: Mar 11, 2016

FORWARD - NO ADDRESS PROVIDED


ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE. THIS DECISION
IS FINAL UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED WITH THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE MAILING OF THIS WRITTEN DECISION.
SEE THE ENCLOSED FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPERLY PREPARING YOUR APPEAL.
YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL, ATTACHED DOCUMENTS, .AND FEE OR FEE WAIVER REQUEST
MUST BE MAILED TO:
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
FALLS CHURCH, VA 22041
ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE AS THE RESULT
OF YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT YOUR SCHEDULED DEPORTATION OR REMOVAL HEARING.
THIS DECISION IS FINAL UNLESS A MOTION TO REOPEN IS FILED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION 242B(c) (3) OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, 8 U.S.C.
SECTION 1252B(c) (3) IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS OR SECTION 240(c)(6),
8 u.s.c. SECTION 1229a(c) (6) IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS. IF YOU FILE A MOTION
TO REOPEN, YOUR MOTION MUST BE FILED WITH THIS COURT:
IMMIGRATION COURT
2009 W. JEFFERSON AVE, STE 300
HARLINGEN, TX 78550
OTHER:

CC: ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL


1717 ZOY ST.
HARLINGEN, TX, 785520000

IMMIGRATION COURT

Cite as: C-J-B-F-, AXXX XXX 418 (BIA Dec. 13, 2016)

FF

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

Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project


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

(
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
HARLINGEN IMMIGRATIO c\>URT
HARLINGEN, TEXA

IN THE MATTER OF

RESPONDENT
APPLICATIONS:

March\

CJ,

2016

Case Number: A 206-633-418

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

Motion to Reopen

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT


Nareeneh Sohbatian
Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project
Catholic Charities of Los Angeles, Inc.
1530 James M. Wood Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90015

ONBEHALFOF THEGOVERNMENT
Assistant Chief Counsel
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
1717 Zoy Street
Harlingen, TX 78550

DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE


On September 24, 2014, the Court ordered the respondent removed to Honduras in
absentia pursuant to section 240(b)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or Act).
On February 16, 2016, the respondent, through counsel, filed a motion to reopen. The
respondent's motion to reopen will be denied.
In his statement submitted in support of the motion to reopen, the respondent claims that
he was told by immigration officials that he needed to sign a document. He states that the
document was written in English and that he did not read or understand English at the time. He
further states that the contents of the document were not explained to him and that he did not
understand the consequences of signing the document. Finally he claims that he was not given a
copy of the document he was told to sign.
The record reflects that the respondent was personally served with the Notice to Appear
(NTA) on March 18, 2014. Exh. #1. The respondent was fourteen years old. Exh. #2 (Record
of Deportable/lnadmissible Alien) (Form 1-213). The NTA also indicates that the respondent
was provided with oral notice, in the Spanish language, of the consequnces of failing to appear as
provided by section 240(b )(7) of the Act. Upon release from custody the respondent reported his
address as "c/o Lourdes Yamileth Fonseca Salgado (Mother) 1333 S Greenwood Ave Apt 24,
Montebello, CA 90640." Exh. #1-A. A hearing notice was mailed to the respondent at that
address. This hearing notice informed the respondent of his September 24, 2014 removal
hearing in Harlingen, Texas, and also advised him of the consequences of failing to appear. Exh.
#1-B. This constitutes proper notice under section 239(a) of the Act.

Cite as: C-J-B-F-, AXXX XXX 418 (BIA Dec. 13, 2016)

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

)
)
)
)
)
)

The Court finds that the respondent has not demonstrated that he did not receive notice of
his September 24, 2014 removal hearing in accordance with section 239(a) of the Act. There
Court mailed the hearing notice to the respondent's most recent address provided pursuant to
section 239(a){l )(F). There is no evidence demonstrating that this hearing notice was returned
by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable.
Finally, the Court concludes the circumstances of this case do not warrant an exercise of
its limited discretion to reopen these proceedings sua sponte. See Matter of J-J-, 21 I&N Dec.
976 (BIA 1997).
Accordingly, the following orders shall be entered:
ORDER: The respondent's motion to reopen his removal proceedings is DENIED.

David Ayala
United States Immigration Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THIS DOCUMENT WAS SERVED BY: MAIL (M) PERSONAL SERVIC_h(P)
TO: ( ) ALIEN ( )ALIEN C/0 CUSTODIAN CYJALIEN'S A Y
f1DHS
BY:
COURT
STAFF
__
...,,._,,,.---+--DATE:
&lJ-\(1
ATTACHMENTS: () EOIR-33 () EOIR-28 ( ) LEGAL ER I ES LIST OTHER
2

Cite as: C-J-B-F-, AXXX XXX 418 (BIA Dec. 13, 2016)

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

The Court finds that the respondent was properly served with the NTA under section
239(a)(l) of the Act. The regulations only provide specific instructions for service of a notice to
appear in the case of a minor under fourteen years of age. 8 C.F.R. 1236.2(a); see Lopez
Dubon v. Holder, 609 F.3d 642, 646 (5th Cir. 2010); Matter of Mejia-Andino, 23 I. & N. Dec.
533, 535 (BIA 2002). As the respondent was fourteen at the time he was apprehended, personal
service of the charging document upon the respondent himself was appropriate. The
respondent's attorney argues that service of the NTA was not proper because the respondent was
not informed of the "meaning, contents, and the consequences of the NTA." Respondent's
Motion to Reopen at 5. The respondent's attorney has not cited to the Act, regulations or
relevant case law in making this argument. The Court finds that there is no statutory or
regulatory requirement that the warnings that appear in the NTA be provided orally or in the
respondent's native language. Current law does not require that the NTA be in any language
other than English. See section 239 of the Act, 8 C.F.R. 239.1. Furthermore the NTA
indicates that the respondent was, in fact, informed of the consequences of failing to appear in
his native language. See NTA.