U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals

Office ofthe Clerk

5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

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

Russo, Liberante J., Esq. OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - ELP
Attorney at Law 11541 Montana Ave , Suite 0
1005 Chuckar Drive SW El Paso, TX 79936
Albuquerque, NM 87121-8083

Name: RUIZ MEDINA , JUAN A 200-954-354

Date of this notice: 4/18/2017

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

Sincerely,

Cynthia L. Crosby
Acting Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members:
Kendall Clark, Molly
Pauley, Roger
Guendelsberger, John

J. 1se'5
Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/

Cite as: Juan Ruiz-Medina, A200 954 354 (BIA April 18, 2017)
... U.S; Department of Justice Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 2204 I

File: A200 954 354 - El Paso, TX Date:

APR 1 8 2017
In re: JUAN RUIZ-MEDINA

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

APPEAL

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Liberante J. Russo, Esquire

ON BEHALF OF DHS: Adrian Paredes

Assistant Chief Counsel

APPLICATION: Administrative closure; voluntary departure

The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals the Immigration Judge's
July 5, 2016, decision denying his motion for administrative closure, but granting voluntary
departure. The Department of Homeland Security ("OHS") moves for a summary affirmance.
The respondent's appeal will be sustained and the record remanded.

We review the factual findings, including the Immigration Judge's credibility determination,
under a "clearly erroneous" standard. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l (d)(3)(i). We review all other issues,
including whether the parties have met the relevant burden of proof, and issues of discretion,
under a de novo standard. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(ii); Matter ofA-S-B-, 24 I&N Dec. 493
(BIA 2008).

The respondent sought to administratively close the proceedings to pursue a

provisional unlawful presence waiver (Form I-601A) with the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services in connection with an approved visa petition filed by his
United States citizen wife (Tr. at 3). See 8 C.F.R. 212.7(e); see also Respondent's Motion,
dated May 27, 2016. Although aliens in removal proceedings are generally ineligible for
provisional waivers, the pertinent regulation expressly contemplates the possible grant of
admi.nistrative closure (followed by a request for termination or dismissal of proceedings without
prejudice where the waiver is approved) for aliens in removal proceedings who would
otherwise be elirible to apply for provisional waivers. See 8 C.F.R. 212.7(e)(4)(iii) (Effective
Aug. 29, 2016).

The Immigration Judge's decision does not address the respondent's motion for
administratively closure and his on the record denial insufficiently explains the underlying
reasons (Tr. at 3-4). See Matter of S-H-, 23 I&N Dec. 462 (BIA 2002) (holding that because the
Board has limited fact-finding authority on appeal, there is a heightened need for Immigration
Judges to provide clear and complete factual findings supported by the record and in compliance

1 At the time of the Immigration Judge's July 5, 2016, the then-current regulatory provision
citation was 8 C.F.R. 212.7(e)(4)(v).

Cite as: Juan Ruiz-Medina, A200 954 354 (BIA April 18, 2017)
# A200 954 354

with controlling law). In particular, the Immigration Judge has not adequately addressed the
non-exhaustive factors specified in Matter ofAvetisyan, 25 l&N Dec. 688, 696 (BIA 2012)
(identifying certain relevant factors when evaluating whether administrative closure is
appropriate under the totality of the circumstances); see generally Matter of M-P-,
20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (holding that an Immigration Judge must identify and fully explain
the reasons for denying a motion to reopen). Nor did the OHS indicate whether it opposed

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

administrative closure. Under the circumstances, we will remand the record to the Immigration
Judge for a new decision adjudicating the respondent's motion to administratively close
proceedings.2

On remand, the Immigration Judge may further consider the respondent's arguments related
to the voluntary departure bond, given the passage of time since granting voluntary departure.

Accordingly, the following orders will be entered.

ORDER: The appeal is sustained and the Immigration Judge's July 5, 2016, decision is
vacated.

FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision.

.,.

2 Given that we are remanding the case, we need not reach the respondent's remaining appellate

arguments at this time.

Cite as: Juan Ruiz-Medina, A200 954 354 (BIA April 18, 2017)
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
EL PASO, TEXAS

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

File: A200-954-354 July 5, 2016

In the Matter of

)
JUAN RUIZ MEDINA ) IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
)
RESPONDENT )

CHARGE: Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act - entry

without inspection.

APPLICATIONS: Voluntary departure at the completion of the proceedings.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: JOHN RUSSO

1005 Chuckar Drive
Albuquerque, NM

ON BEHALF OF OHS: ADRIAN PAREDES

11541 Montana Avenue, Suite 0
El Paso, TX 79936

ORAL DECISION AND ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

The respondent was originally placed in proceedings in the year 2013 (Exhibit 1).

He eventually requested relief in the form of cancellation of removal for non-permanent

. residents. After a hearing, the Court reserved a decision in the matter. On October 22,

2013, the Court released a written decision denying relief and ordering removal of the

respondent to Mexico.

1
 The appeal was originally considered and dismissed by the Board in 2015.

Subsequently, a motion to re-open was filed with the Board. On September 17, 2015,

the Board remanded the matter back to the Court to consider potential relief in the form

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

of adjustment of status.

On today's date, the respondent appeared before this Court, with counsel. The

hearing was conducted as a Master Calendar. During the hearing, the respondent,

through counsel, requested the relief of voluntary departure.

During the hearing, counsel explained that the respondent would have to seek

consular adjudication of his application for adjustment of status. The relief subsequently

identified and requested was voluntary departure.

The Court considered voluntary departure. The respondent now has an

approved 1-130 petition from his United States citizen wife. He will be required to

pursue adjudication through the United States Consulate office in Mexico. Were he to

return to the country in violation of the order, or refuse to depart, the respondent would

be barred from seeking adjustment of status. Therefore, the Court determined that

voluntary departure could be granted based upon the facts of the case.

The respondent's application for voluntary departure was granted by this Court.

The respondent requested and received 60 days to depart voluntarily. Since the

regulations require the setting of a departure bond, the Court set the bond in the amount

of $2,500. The bond was considered reasonable in light of the fact that the respondent

had three prior voluntary returns granted by Immigration officers. On each occasion he

had returned to the country without inspection.

The evidence at the cancellation hearing also revealed that the respondent had

refused to support his child or children born to him in the state of New Mexico. The

respondent was required to make a Court appearance over his refusal to provide child

A200-954-354 2 July 5, 2016

support. In light of the foregoing, and the respondent's reputation for obeying orders,

the Court determined that a departure bond of $2,500 was appropriate.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the respondent's counsel reserved appeal.

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

While reservation of appeal is available, the respondent received the relief requested of

the Court. When asked the purpose of the appeal, the respondent's counsel only

indicated that he wanted time to "mull over the issue of appeal." In light of the

foregoing, the Court has prepared this oral decision.

The respondent received all of his advisals regarding voluntary departure and the

requirement of timely payment of the departure bond.

Please see the next page for electronic

signature
THOMAS C. ROEPKE
U.S. Immigration Judge
El Paso, Texas

A200-954-354 3 July 5, 2016

/Is//

Immigration Judge THOMAS C. ROEPKE

roepket on December 13, 2016 at 3:27 PM GMT

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

A200-954-354 4 July 5, 2016