U.S.

Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board ofImmigration Appeals Office ofthe Clerk

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

5107 Ltesburg Pike. Suite 2000

Falls Church, Virginia 2:!041

Cooner, Douglas H., Esquire Civil & Immigration Law Center 1901 Richard Arrington Blvd So Birmingham, AL 35209-1270

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel ATL 180 Spring Street, Suite 332 Atlanta, GA 30303

Name: MUGO, VERONICA WAGJTHI

A 093-459287

Date ofthis notice: 1/18/2013

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

DcrutL c:a.NV
Donna Carr Chief Clerk Enclosure Panel Members:
Manuel, Elise L.

schwarzA

Userteam: Docket

Cite as: Veronica Wagithi Mugo, A093 459 287 (BIA Jan. 18, 2013)

' U.&.DeparhnentofJnstice
Executive Office for Immigration Review Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

File: A093 459 287 - Atlanta, GA

ln. re: VERONICA WAGITHI MUGO

Date:

JAN 182013

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL AND MOTION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Douglas H. Cooner, Esquire ON BEHALF OF DHS: Morrisl.Onyevvuchu Assistant Chief Counsel

APPLICATION:

Continuance; remand

The respondent, a female native and citizen of Kenya, appeals from the Immigration Judge's decision dated July 29, 2011. That decision found the respondent removable, denied a motion for a further continuance, and granted the privilege of voluntary departure. The respondent argues on appeal that the Immigration Judge erred and abused his discretion in denying her motion for a continuance. In response, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has moved for summary affirmance. Subsequent to the DRS's reply to the respondent's appeal, the respondent filed a motion seeking a remand to await adjudication of a visa petition filed by her husband on November 7, 2011. The motion was accompanied by evidence confirming the filing of the visa petition on the respondent's behalf and that the respondent and her husband had a child who was born on October 1, 2011. According to the motion, the DHS was served with a copy of it. 1 As the DHS did not submit a response to the motion filed by the respondent, the motion is deemed unopposed. Also, we note that the electronic records maintained by the United States Citizen and Immigration Services indicate that the respondent's husband's visa petition was approved on September 21, 2012. In light of the approved visa petition and the lack of opposition from the DHS to the motion to remand filed by the respondent, we will remand the record to afford the respondent an opportunity to apply for adjustment of status. Accordingly, the following order shall be entered. ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

' It appears that the certificate of service was cut and pasted from a prior motion filed in this case

on September 26, 2011, onto this new motion, as its wording references the prior motion, by name and date of service. However, we do not find this error to mean that the new motion was not properly served.
Cite as: Veronica Wagithi Mugo, A093 459 287 (BIA Jan. 18, 2013)


File No.: A 093 459 287 In the Matter of
~

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

June 29, 2011
) ) )
)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT Atlanta, Georgia

VERONICA WAGITHI MUGO Respondent CHARGE:

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

Section 237(a) (1) (B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Motion for a continuance.

APPLICATION:

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Douglas Cooner 1901 Richard Harrington Blvd S. Birmingham, AL 35209

ON BEHALF OF DHS: Morris I. Onyewuchi Assistant Chief Counsel

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE This case carne before the Court as the result of a Notice to Appear that was issued by the Department of Homeland Security. The charging document alleges that the respondent is a native and citizen of Kenya and that she is removable from the United States pursuant to Section ?37(a) (1) (B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The respondent has admitted the factual allegations in the Notice to Appear and has conceded removability. In light of the

foregoing, the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that

1


that become necessary.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

The

the respondent is removable from the United States as charged. The Court has designated Kenya as the country of removal should

The proceedings in this case began back in 2008.

respondent appeared in Court on May 7, 2008, and submitted written pleadings, in which she admitted the factual allegations and conceded removability. The respondent indicated that the

only form of relief that she was requesting is adjustment of status based on an I-360 visa petition. at the time. The petition was filed

Subsequently, the Court granted continuances for The respondent subsequently

the adjudication of the I-360.

withdraw the I-360 and instead sought to proceed on the basis of an I-130 that was filed by a United States husband. The Court

has granted various continuances since this case started in 2008. It is now over three years since the case started. The According

respondent's I-130 visa petition was recently denied.

to the respondent, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service denied the I-130 visa petition on May 2nd, 2011. The

respondent seeks another continuance at this point or perhaps administrative closure. The Court will not grant any further

continuances in this case. The Court previously granted continuances for the adjudication of an I-360 and also an I-130. Those were

discretionary grants to allow for an adjudication of an application that the respondent had pending. A 093 459 287
2

A decision has been June 29, 2011


reached on the most recent application. to the respondent. Board of Immigration Appeals.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

The decision is adverse At that

The matter presumably will be appealed to the

The respondent will be granted voluntary departure with an alternate order of removalcand will have the opportunity to appeal this case to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

juncture, both cases will be before the Board of Immigration Appeals and that body will be in the best position to resolve any further continuances in this matter. In light of the foregoing, the Court will enter the following order in this case: ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondent's application for voluntary departure be, and hereby is, granted. The respondent

is granted voluntary departure up to an including August 29, 2011, 60 days from today, upon the payment of a bond of $500 within five business days with an Kenya. Warning to the respondent. Failure to leave the United
~lternate

order of removal to

States within the time frame set forth by the Court means that you could be subject to an order of removal, you may be subject to a civil penalty of between $1,000 and $5,000 and you will be ineligible for ten years to come from receiving cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, relief under the registry provisions, voluntary departure or a change in nonimmigrant A 093 459 287

June 29, 2011

'

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

If the

status. The respondent has reserved appeal and the deadline for filing an appeal in this case is July 29, 2011.

respondent files an appeal, she is advised that she must provide the Board of Immigration Appeals, within 30 days of filingan appeal, sufficient proof of having posted the voluntary departure bond. The Board will not reinstate the voluntary departure

period in its final order if the respondent does not submit timely proof to the Board that the voluntary departure bond has been posted. If the respondent does not appeal and instead files a motion to re-open or a motion to reconsider during the voluntary departure period, she is hereby advised that the period allowed for voluntary departure will not be stayed, tolled or extended, the grant of voluntary departure will be terminated automatically, the alternate order of removal will take effect immediately and the penalties for failing to depart voluntarily will not apply. Finally, the civil monetary penalty for failing to depart within the voluntary departure period has been set in this case at the presumptive amount of $3,000.

United States Immigration Judge

A 093 459 287

June 29, 2011

.'
CERTIFICATE PAGE

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

hereby certify that

the attached proceeding before

JUDGE EARLE B. WILSON, in the matter of: VERONICA WAGITHI MUGO A 093 459 287 Atlanta, Georgia is an accurate, verbatim transcript of the recording as provided by the Executive Office for Immigration Review and that this is the .original transcript thereof for the file of the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

llotti, Trans Free State Reporting, Inc.

August 19, 2011 ("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.