Baltazar Bucio Avalos, A088 721 069 (BIA Sept 2, 2015)

8/20/2019 Baltazar Bucio Avalos, A088 721 069 (BIA Sept 2, 2015)

1/10

Rudolph, James BrdleyRudolph, Bakr & Assocites419 19th StreetSan Diego, CA 92102

Nme: BUCIAVALS, BALTAZAR

U.S Department of Justice

Executiv Of r Immigraion Riw

Board of Imigtion AppelsOc of h Clk

517 /,esburg Pik. St 200(Fal Chch Vna 224

OHSICE ice of Chef Counsel - SND880 Front St., Room 2246San Deo, CA 92101-8834

A 088721069

Dte of ths notce 9/2 /2015

Enlosd is a opy o h Board's disio and ordr i h abo-rrnd as.

Enlosur

Panel Members:Gudbg, Joh

Sirly,

Du ctDoa CarrCh rk

Userte Dock

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visitwww.irac.net/unpublished/index/


2/10

U.S Department of Justice

Execuve Oce r Imgaon Review

Board of Immigation ApealsOce o he Cerk

5107 Lsburg Pike, Ste 2000Fall Cch. Vgn 2204/

BUCIO-AVALOS, BALTAZAR DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - SNDA088-721-069 880 Front St, oom 2246C/ SAN DIEGO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY San Diego, CA 92101-8834P . BOX 439049SAN DIEGO CA 921439049

Name: BUCIO-AVALOS BALTAZAR A 088-721-069

Date of this notice: 9/2/2015

nclosed s a copy of he Bord's decson n te above-erenced case. Ths copy s bengpovded o yo s a coresy You oey o epesenave as been seved with sdecson psn o 8 CF § 12925(a) e aached deison odes ha yo beeoved o e Unied Saes or ams n igaion Jdge's decson odering ha yoube reoved, y peio eview o he aaced decso s be led wh ad receivedby he appopriae cor of appeals whn 30 days of e dae o e decsion

ncosue

Panel Membrs:

Guendelsberger, John

inceey

DO c(Donna CarrChe Clerk

Useream:


3/10

Executve. Oce r Imaon Reiew

Decson ofhe Bod o ato Appeal

Fal Chc, Vga 22041

Fie: A088 21 069 Sn Diego, Caia

In re BALTAZAR BUCIO AVALS

IN MOVAL PROCEEDINGS

APPEAL

Dae

ON BEHALF OF SPONDEN: Jmes Bradey Rudlph, Esquire

ON BEHALF OF DHS Rhana himotAssitnt Che Counel

APPLICATIN Reopening

SEP - 2 015

e respondent has led n appeal f n Immigraion Judge's June 1, 2015, ecision, denyinghi motin o reopen The reponden' appeal wil be dismised

The Bd reviews n Immiain Judge' nding o c, includng ndings as o ecredibiliy f tesiny, nd e ikeliho of re evens, der e clely eneous"stndd. See 8 CF. § 1003(d)(3)(i) Mater of Z-Z0-, 2 I&N Dec 58 (BI 2015);Matter of R--H-, 23 I&N Dec 629 (BIA 2003); aer o H-, 23 I&N Dec. 42 (BIA 2002).The Bod reviews uesins o law, icreon, d udgen d all oher isues in appeal o Immin Judge's ecisin de nvo. See 8 CF.R. § 003(d)(3)(ii).

The record reects e respndent was rdered remved om e Unied Ses by nImigrn Jud� e n Decemer 11, 2008, prsu o a ren ad jtysigned siplaedorder o remova. The responden amis reentering he Unied Staes ne wek aer, nd nMay 2, 2015, ney 7 yers aer, led uimely mion reqesing sua sponte rpenngging ha 1) e Imain Jge's 2008 order o remval violaed ghts due prces,d 2) s the beneciry of n approve mmeiate relaive iiat visa peiion le on hbehal y his United Ses citizen spuse, he qulies r a provisiona unl presence waiver(Fo I-01A), d cn estlish his eligibility r te waiver wie awaing conul visa

prcessing aroad ony i is remval proceedings re teinae or amntratively csed. See8 C.F.R. § 2127(e). The Imin Juge deie e respndent's mion ning at te

min ws nt timelyled Mreover, te responent presene n new evidence ering n eorinl 2008 remval orer, led to hw a he aced wi due iligence s s wequitae ong ing ne Fn gra n e crcunce inhe respondent cse were not approprae r sua sonte repenng

I nder 8 C.FR. § 003.25(b), an Imigration Judge is allwed o ener rder of remvwitht a heing i i is spulated t by e respondent and he DHS e reguln errequires a, where he responen is unrepreented, he Immgrain Judge m deemne ae liens waiver is vunt, knwing, ineigen" Id


4/10

088 721 09

On ppeal, e repondent challenge e vady of he mmaton Judge pulatedremoval order, entred on Decemer 11, 2008, argung at t doe not meet the requementsculated by the United Ste Co of Appe r e nth Crcut, the judcon wheren e ares, n Unied Saes v. Ramos, 623 F3d 672 (9 C. 2010). The repondentcontend due poce ght were voated ece he dd not undestd e contents of thewrten stpuated removal agreement whch he oly-gned wth ocer r e Depent

of Homeld Secrty ( DHS")2

We consder nty wheter e repondent waver of rght, ncludng h ght to appealund n the tpulated remova agreement whh he sgned, was onsdeed and ntelgent" areqred y Ramos and te reguons See Uned Saes v Ramos supa at 680. It appe erespondent n this cae w epesented d dd not appe bere an Iaton udge pror tobeng removed om the Unted States Relying solely on the iten tplated removagreement sgned by the repondent, the Immaton udge grnted e DHS' moon rstplated emoval nd noted that the appea was waved by oth pe.

While the stpuated removal" regulaon se that no hearng reqred, the egulaton does

not preclude a herng Moreover, the reguaton reque th the mmaon udge determne that wavers e vou, knowng, d ntelgent" n ce where the epondent notrepreseted y counel 8 CFR § 100325(b). In Ramos, te co noted eve acto thatled them to concude e respondents waver of h rght o appeal was dectve Keyong thee wa the ct at the respondent was not repeented by ounse d at therepondent neve had e enet of appeng ere the Immgraton Judge when navgatng teabyrh of o mmgraton aws ." Unied Saes v Ramos supa, 8682 (ctngCaso-O'Ryan v S I, 847 F2d 1307, 132 (9th C 1988). Smlly, the epondent heewa not repreented y counel and dd not have the enet of appearng bere ImmgronJudge, who premaby would have adequately conveyed bo the [repondents] appea oponsd e naly ocated with wavng appeal" See at 681 ( cng Maer ofRodrguezDaz

22 &N Dec 1320, 1323 (BIA 2000)) Further, there s no ndicaton n the Immaon JudgeDecember 11, 2008, orde, reectig that a determnaton at the repondent waver of hsrght, ncudng h ight to ounsel and h rght to appeal w knowing, condered, dntellgent as equred y Unied Sates v Ramos supra d he reguaton.

Had the nepresented repondent appeed ee Immaton Judge n ce, theImmion Judge coud have seed whether the espondent's wver of r w conderedd ntegent. Smil to the alen n Ramos, the respondent here alo neve reeved e benetof a revew y counse o igraton udge of h potenta elgblty r ele, epecaly nl of e mdatoy requrement unde e regulaton that te Immgraton udge n alen of hs appent elgty r relef om remova See at 68-62; see also

v LopezVelasquez, 629 F3d 94, 896 (9th Cr. 010) (ctng 8 CF.R. § 12401 (a)(2))

2 Alough the repondent contends tat he misey beeved he was agreeng to admnive volunt re to Mexco n leu of removal proceedng, the cam onadcted y hs acceptng te pesonal ervce of a Note to Appe (NTA") (o I82)explanng that he w eng plaed n removal proceedng. Feore, the NTA eect thathe ed the doent acknowledgng that he wa provded oral notce of s contes in Spsh

2


5/10

0 721 9

Giv these circumstces, we are unable to ascerai wheer e resoets sige o siple removal agreemet estalishes t his wver of rits, icluig is right to aealwas cosiere itellige As wi e alie i Ramos we coclue at the iatioJdge appes to have violated CF R § 100325(b) by lig to etermie whether theresoets waiver was voly, kowig itelliget," as reqire by te regulatio

oetheless, eve if te Immgratio Juges violate the reglatio by ilig to ahere to theRamos reqiremes his is isuciet, stig aloe, to valiate e December 11, 200stiplate removal orer, less he resoet c also establish that he suere rejudice as areslt of that proceral violaio See v Arrieta 224 F3 1076 1079 (9th Cir. 2000) I

this case, the resoet alleges rejuice claimig e Immigratio Jge i ot avise hm tohis apt eligibility r voly ee at e time of his removal roceeigs i 200Hoever i order to meet hs bde t establish rejuice" the resoet mst ot olyeate s story eligibility r voluy epre bt also as alie seekg aiscretiory of relief om remoal he must me a lsible showg" that teImigro Jge, resete with l of the cts, wol exercse vorable discretio o sbeal See v onzaezFlores 7 F3 1094 1100 (9h Cir. 2015) citig

United States v. RojasPedroza 716 3 1253, 1263-64 (th Cir2013)).Te cot i v. GonzaezFores rers s to a two-ste process r etermiig wheer

alie climig aet eligibili r vo epre has mae his showig See i at 1100(citig United States v Roas-Pedroza supra at 1263). st, it is ecessy to te ito accoe positive a egative ctors Immatio Jge wol cosier relevt to exercise ofiscretio3 See i At which poit, it woul te be approriate to etermie whether, i lightof tese ctors te circstces of the respoets case he cried the be of rovig itwas lausible (ot merely conceiable) that e igaio Juge wol have exercise hisiscretio i he [resoes] vor" See United States v Ro-Pedroza supra at 1263; v CisnerosResendiz 656 3 1015, 1018 (9 Cir 2011) (se) Fheore, the cour

otes that establishig 'plasibility reques more tha establisg a mere 'ossibility SeeUnite States v. BarajasAlvarao 655 3 1077, 109 ( Cir 2011)

Here eve assig, argendo the resoets aet" sattory eligibiliy r voltyepe at e tme he w place i removal roceeigs i 200, e resodet has ot criehis bure as to whether the orable exercise of iscretio was we i his case Iweighig the positive egative ctors Immiio Juge woul cosier relev to exercise of iscreo at the time he was place i removal proceegs i 2008 the resoetsgeeral rerece a writte semet accmayig e motio to havig to rovie r is

3

Te cor ote that ositive ctors icle og resiece close mily ties to the UiteStates mian ees," whereas egative ctors icle ''the e eyigccumsces f e epn on a isse aital violatis of e immiatio laws; theexistece, seousess, rececy of ay crm record any other eviece of bachacter r the esirability of the appict as a eanet resiet" SeeUnite States v Roasedroza, supra at 1263-65 (qotig Matter of rgeesCampos22 I&N Dec 811, 1 (BIA 1999)) see aso Mater of amboa 14 I& Dec 244 24 (BI1972) (listig relevt ctors r a eteiatio of whether ale merits volty eure i

he exercise of iscreti)

3


6/10

088 721 09

mly,4 • woud o ecessly overcome e gc egve cor hs l resdece e Ued Ses er vg eered s cuy legly. See Matter ofRojas 15 I&N Dec.492 493 (BIA 975) (dg h e mner n wc len gs ey s relev o eexercise of dsceo djudicing ppc vouy depure). A e respodens no sown i s plusle (no erely concevle) e wuld hve receved dscreiory gr o vluy depe, e reponde ws o peuced by e Immgrion

Judge' lure ofy m o y ppen elgiy r such ree. See United States vValdez-Novoa 780 F.3d 906, 97 (9 Cr. 2015).

O de ovo revew, we coclude h eve we were o d e respode's removl proceedigs 2008 did o y cmpo wit due process (i.e he mmgro Judge'sspued removl oder dd o mee e Ramos requremens), e respode h o s he ws preudced by ose decs, so s o reder e Iigro Jdge' uderlyng2008 spuled order of removl dey nr, d uderme s vldy See 93(cg United States v aldoFgueroa 364 F3d 042, 048 (9 Cr 2004) ( uderygremovl order s elly ur : (1) e lie's due poces ri were voed y decs i uderyg depoo proceedig, d (2) e sered predce s resul o e deec.).

As we e o persuded by e respde's cllege o e vdy he IoJudge' 2008 sipued remov order, we gree wih i coclusi the respde's moos led ou o ime d dd o w y excepons. See 8 C.F.R § 1003.23()(). TheAc d is mplemeg regulos provde y moon epe remov prceedgs mus e led w 90 dys er e de whe e nl dmsve order of emovl ws eered.See ecio 240(c)(7)(C)(i) o he Ac, 8 U.S.C. § 1229(c)(7)(C)(i) 8 CF.R. § 003.23(b)().e espode's moon ws led erly 7 ye er he Immio Juge's ldmiisive oder o Decemer 11, 2008; nd nery 7 yes er e respode's climed llegl ey o he Ue Se. The responden's rgumes i suppor o e moin, s

e subec o s ppeal, bsed o equies he cqired urig e diol 7-ye of wl

presece he Uie Ses llog h removl i 2008, d his suseque llegl e-eryoe week ler, l o show he execed e necesry ue dlgece equble olling o e moon lg delie See Sngh v Gonzales 491 F.3d 1090 (9 C. 2007).

Given e record bere e Immgrion Judge, we do o nd e Immio Judgeeed eclg reope proceedigs sua sponte, d we lkewse d he crcumsces presened y e responen do o w he exercise of our limied dcreio o reopesua sponte See Mater of J-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 976 (BIA 1997).

4 e responde's ly now icude h spe, who le m vs peii o his bel

J 29, 2013, d hs ree cildre, ll Une Ses cizes. However, ee equtiespper o oly ve come no exsence e 7-ye perd er e repden's remvl 8, use g , w h n n cnsdern o he posve d egve cors e mm Jdge's dsceoy lyss. The respode, eme ccompyig e moio, iced n 2008 he w he egged o s USCspoue--e, ey hd oe cd ogee. owever, he respode's clmed ce"relonsp eed o hve receved much weigh e Immigrin Judge's discreoyayss sgc mly e 2008 ey were o ye mred, ohsdg erespe's unsuppored clm h hey redy hd child ogeer e me.

4


7/10

' .

A088 721 0,69

Acordingy, te aeal will be dismissed.

ORDER: Te apeal i dimised

5


8/10

. ' �

•·

·.,

. : .:

N' SArES DEPARTMENT O JSTCEEXECUTIVE OFICE FO IMMIGAI RIEWIMIGRATION COU40 ES A STREE, SUI #0SAN IEGO CA 9101Rudolph, Baker & AssociatesRdolph, ams Braley419 9h SreetS Dego CA 912 Dae: J 17 215File A-69

In he Mater ofBUCOAALOS, BALAZAAtahed s a cop of the wten decso o the Iigraio JdgeThs eciso is fnal uless a appea is ae o he Board ofIgrao Appeals. Th enlose copes of FOM EOI 6,Notice of Appeal and FORM EOI 2 Noice of Entr as Atorey orepreseaive properly execte mst be fed th he Boar ofI�igration Appeals o or befoeh appea m be accompane y proof of pai fe ($1)Enlose s a opy of the oral desio.

cosed s tranrpt of the teso_of record ou are graed ul o s brf his office n support of yor appeal. /'·-. o sit abref pposio o the appelosng osel s graned untlEclosed is a copy of the orderdeso of the gration udgeAl papers fled wth the Cour shall be accompaned by proofof serve upon oppoig counsel

STC OSE880 O TET1 OOM 2SA DIEO CA 920000. "

� ·.�

L�

.

·�·' (,

. J 1


9/10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2

13

4

15

6

17

18

9

2 0

2

2 2

2

2

5

2

27

28

U .Jcxcv c vc , C

In the Mtr of Blar ucio Avs Number: 08-721069

ORDR OF THE IIGRTION Dpon onsderaton of Respond Moton o Reope s HEBY ODEDTa e moon be GRNED �NIED bease

- -

DHS does not oppose e .

Te responent doe not oppos the motonA response o e moon o been led t te ourGood ase s been establs e moon

ou agees w te easons sa n e oposon to e moo. � f Cr S 'Ve motion s 1time e / • ( {ver:� mtd J .J .� i, . l; , / �Deadlin es:. � "�' . I 7 . V W' J r�. �r , 1wH dp - ' I

�e. W1 � ' + i"c - /J r

Te aaton(s) reef s be le by ___________Te respondent ms omp DHS bomes sons b _-

Cc c c P c : [ ] [ ] c C c' lHs: � - 17 -/ �. By: Court Staff_,.k�-·---

8

MOTIN REOP AD QUS' FO STAY MOVL


10/10

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

13

4

15

16

7

1

9

0

1

2

2 3

2

27

2

United States Department ofJuticeExective Oce r Immigratio Reiew

Oce o the migration JudgeSa Diego, Calirnia

In the Mater of Baltazar Bcio vaos A Number: 088721-69

O OF T IMMGTION JUDGUpon condeaon of Respo' s Sta of emoval, HBY ODDa e moton be GRANTD ENID beauDHS doe no oppose e mo

e eponent e not opos e motioA repone to te mo s no ee led w t o.Good caue h ee etabld e motoTe cou agre wt he o stte e oppn to e moion.The moon s tmely pe ______e f � r�l-Deade:Te applicato() r rele m e le by ___________ esponden ms comp DHS meic stctin _;___

Date

Certicate o SeiceThis document was seed by� Mai Personl SeiceTo: [ ] Alien [ ) Alien co Custoda cerfA1ien' AttyRep/DHSDate: b , (1 -, � By: Court Staf �

7

9

MOTIN REOPE ND QUS FO SAY O VL

Documents

Baltazar Bucio Avalos, A088 721 069 (BIA Sept 2, 2015)