BIA Unpubs, Oct. 24-25, 2013

BIA Unpubs, Oct. 24-25, 2013

"Rosa Amparo-Salmeron, A072 163 739 (BIA Oct. 24, 2013) In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reopened proceedings sua sponte to provide the respondent a further opportunity to pursue her request for voluntary departure. The decision was written by Member David Holmes.

Esau Rodriguez, A073 692 631 (BIA Oct. 25, 2013) In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied a motion to remand filed by the Department of Homeland Security upon finding that the decision in Rodriguez v. Holder, 705 F.3d 207 (5th Cir. 2013) (holding attempted sexual assault under Texas Penal Code section 22.011 is not a crime of violence under 18 USC 16(b)), vacated the removal order against the respondent and did not remand the case to the Board. The decision was written by Member David Holmes.

To Nga Thi Dinh, A089 854 183 (BIA Oct. 25, 2013) In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded the case for further consideration of the respondent’s request for a continuance pending her application for adjustment of status. The Board noted that the respondent had appealed the denial of a visa petition by USCIS, and that she given birth to a child of her U.S. citizen husband. The decision was written by Member Elise Manuel.

Jose Juan Garcia-Aguirre, A094 985 673 (BIA Oct. 25, 2013) In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) granted a joint motion to reopen and administratively close the proceedings based upon an exercise of prosecutorial discretion for a respondent who entered the country in 2004 and is the father of an 8-year-old U.S. citizen child and a 20-year-old grantee under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The decision was issued by Member David Holmes.

Michael Mutukwa, A099 395 254 (BIA Oct. 25, 2013) In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded the record to provide a pro se respondent an additional chance to seek a continuance and U nonimmigrant status. The Board stated that "While an Immigration Judge must not take on the role of advocate for an alien, it is appropriate for Immigration Judges to aid in the development of the record, particularly where an alien appears pro se and may be unschooled in the removal process." The decision was written by Vice Chairman Charles Adkins-Blanch." - Courtesy of Ben Winograd and the Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center.