Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 302 views

    Marcelo Alejandro Cao, A089 207 044 (BIA Jan. 31, 2012)

    Uploaded by

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC
    In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) found the Form I-213 introduced by the DHS failed to establish the respondent's alienage because it was based on information taken from a denied I-140 petition in the respondent's A-file that was not in the record. The decision was written by Member Linda Wendtland.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Marcelo Alejandro Cao, A089 207 044 (BIA Jan. 31, 2012)

    Uploaded by

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC
    302 views7 pages
    In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) found the Form I-213 introduced by the DHS failed to establish the respondent's alienage because it was based on information taken from a denied I-140 petition in the respondent's A-file that was not in the record. The decision was written by Member Linda Wendtland.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) found the Form I-213 introduced by the DHS failed to establish the respondent's alienage because it was based on information taken from a denied I-140 petition in the respondent's A-file that was not in the record. The decision was written by Member Linda Wendtland.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    302 views7 pages

    Marcelo Alejandro Cao, A089 207 044 (BIA Jan. 31, 2012)

    Uploaded by

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC
    In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) found the Form I-213 introduced by the DHS failed to establish the respondent's alienage because it was based on information taken from a denied I-140 petition in the respondent's A-file that was not in the record. The decision was written by Member Linda Wendtland.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 7

    U.S.

    Department of Justice

    Executive Office for Immigration Review

    Board ofImmigration Appeals Office of the Clerk


    51071.eesburg Pike, S11ite 2000 Falls C/111rc/1, Virginia 22041

    Weber, Matthew B. Matthew B. Weber, Attorney

    OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel 333 South Miami Ave., Suite 200 Miami, FL 33130

    MIA

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

    444 Brickell Avenue, Suite 300


    Miami, FL 33131

    Name: CAO, MARCELO ALEJANDRO

    A089-207-044

    Date of this notice: 1/31/2012

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

    Donna Carr Chief Clerk

    Enclosure

    Panel Members: Cole, Patricia A. Pauley, Roger Wendtland, Linda S.

    Cite as: Marcelo Alejandro Cao, A089 207 044 (BIA Jan. 31, 2012)

    U.S. Department of Justice


    Executive Office for Immigration Review Falls Church, Virginia 2204 l

    Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

    File:

    A089 207 044 - Miami, FL

    Date:

    In re: MARCELO ALEJANDRO CAO IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF DHS: Matthew B. Weber, Esquire

    JAN 312012

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

    Timothy M. Cole Assistant Chief Counsel

    CHARGE: Notice: Sec. 212(a)(6)(A)(i), l&N Act [8 U .S.C. 1182(a)(6){A)(i)] Present without being admitted or paroled

    APPLICATION: Removability

    On September 23, 2009, an Immigration Judge found the respondent removable as charged. The respondent, a native and citizen of Argentina, now appeals. The respondent's request for oral argument is denied pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1003. l (e)(7) (2011). The record will be remanded. We review an Immigration Judge's findings of fact 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 l&N Dec. 493 (BIA 2008). The respondent denied the allegations set forth in the Notice to Appear, and chose not to testify at the master calendar hearing on September 23, 2009, regarding his alienage (l.J. at 2; Tr. at 12-13). On appeal, the respondent argues that the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") did not meet its burden to show by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the respondent is an alien subject to removal (Respondent's Br. at 2, 4-7). See Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276 (1966). He argues that the Form 1-213 (Record of Deportable/lnadmissible Alien), which was the only evidence offered by DHS to show alienage, was insufficient proof of alienage (Respondent's Br. at 4-7). Thus, he argues that the Immigration Judge erred in finding him to be removable as charged. We conclude that a remand is warranted in this case. In Matter of Ponce-Hernandez, 22 I&N Dec. 784 (BIA 1999), we held that notwithstanding its lack of detailed information in its narrative portion, or information as to how it was completed, the Form 1-213 was sufficient to show alienage because it contained detailed information in its non-narrative portion regarding the names and nationality of the alien's parents, the foreign town where the alien resided before he entered the
    Cite as: Marcelo Alejandro Cao, A089 207 044 (BIA Jan. 31, 2012)

    A089 207 044

    United States illegally, as well as the alien's sex, eye color, and hair color. Id. at 785, 787. Although the Form 1-213 in the instant case indicates that the respondent was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and a foreign birth creates a rebuttable presumption of alienage, the form lacks the other details that led us to conclude in Matter ofPonce-Hernandez, supra, that the Form 1-213 sufficed to establish alienage. We also note that there is reason to believe that the information provided on the instant Form 1-213 was obtained from a source other than the respondent. Specifically, the form expressly states in the narrative portion that "All information was taken from the A-file." That A-file information, in tum, appears to have come from a Form 1-140 (Petition for Alien Worker), which is not in the record before us. Hence, we cannot assess the reliability of the information provided on the Form 1-213. In this respect, the instant case is further distinguishable from Matter ofPonce-Hernandez, supra, in which we concluded that there was nothing to indicate that the information contained on the Form 1-213 came from anyone other than the alien. Id. at 785. For these reasons we conclude that the Form 1-213 in this case is not sufficient evidence to prove the respondent's alienage. We further conclude that a remand is warranted for the Immigration Judge to make further findings of fact regarding the respondent's alienage and removability. On remand, the parties shall be given an opportunity to provide further information regarding the respondent's alienage and removability.1 Accordingly, the following order will be entered. ORDER: The appeal is sustained and the record is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and for the entry of a new decision.

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

    Board Member Roger opinion.

    A.

    Pauley respectfully dissents without

    1 The transcript reflects that the OHS had additional purported evidence of alienage that it was willing to offer, specifically the denial of the Form 1-140 (Tr. at 14-15). The Immigration Judge, however, ruled that the Form 1-213 was sufficient, and the OHS did not have the opportunity to submit the additional evidence (Tr. at I 5-16).

    2
    Cite as: Marcelo Alejandro Cao, A089 207 044 (BIA Jan. 31, 2012)

    'r.

    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT Miami, Florida File No.: A 089 207 044 September 23, 2009

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

    In the Matter of MARCELO ALEJANDRO CAO Respondent CHARGE: Section 212(a) (6) (A) (i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act - alien present without being admitted or paroled. IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

    APPLICATIONS:

    ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Matthew Weber

    ON BEHALF OF OHS: Marcy L. Sheiman

    ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE On June 17, 2009, the Court confirmed the respondent after being served in open Court.

    received the Notice to Appear,

    The Government alleges that he is not a citizen or national of the United States but a native and citizen of Argentina, who

    arrived on an unknown date and place, paroled after inspection by an motion by counsel, September 23, 2009.

    without being admitted or Based on

    Immigration officer.

    the Court had granted a continuance to Separate counsel appeared for current 2009. 1

    counsel on June 17,

    On September 23,

    2009,

    counsel for respondent appeared and

    has waived a reading of the Notice to Appear and rights in removal. The respondent's counsel indicated that the respondent There was an admission that the respondent is

    would stand mute.

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

    Marcelo Alejandro Cao. filed by the Government.

    The Government has introduced an I-213 The Court finds there is sufficient

    information to establish it does pertain to this current respondent before the Court, Marcelo Alejandro Cao. The Court

    will accept the indication in the I-213 that the respondent is a native and citizen of Argentina. Under Section 291 of the Immigration and Nationality Act the

    burden then shifts to the respondent to establish the lawfulness of his presence. Respondent's counsel informed the Court that I find that the respondent is through counsel, refused

    the respondent would remain mute. removable as charged.

    The respondent,

    to seek any relief from removal and asked instead that the matter be terminated for failure of the Government to establish that the respondent is removable. denied. I find the respondent removable as charged. I find further The motion to terminate has been

    by failing to proceed with any relief he might have been deemed eligible to file, prosecution. order. relief will be deemed and denied for lack of the Court will enter the following

    Accordingly,

    A 089 207 044

    September 23,

    2009

    (
    I

    i -

    ORDER IT IS ORDERED that the respondent be removed from the United States to Argentina based on the charge contained in the Notice

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

    to Appear.

    Judge

    A 089 207 044

    September 23,

    2009

    $%ul.ll.iii,,

    c ccv vd.
    . . .

    c_;:;,,.._vA

    L. .'H.

    CERTIFICATE PAGE

    hereby

    certify

    that

    the

    attached

    proceeding

    before

    JUDGE TEOFILO CHAPA,

    in the matter of: MARCELO ALEJANDRO CAO

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

    A 089 207 044 Miami, is an accurate, Florida

    verbatim transcript of the recording as provided by for Immigration Review and that this is the of the Executive Office

    the Executive Office

    original transcript thereof for the file for Immigration Review.

    Free State Reporting,

    Inc.

    November 17, 2009 {completion date)

    By submission of this CERTIFICATE PAGE, the Contractor certifies that a Sony BEC/T-147, 4-channel transcriber or equivalent, and/or CD, as described in Section C, paragraph C. 3 . 3 .2 of the contract, was used to transcribe the Record of Proceeding shown in the above paragraph..

    You might also like