U.S.

Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

<

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office ofthe Clerk

510 7 Leesburg Pike. Suite 2000 Fa/Lr C/111rc/1, Virginia 22041

REJANO, DANILO Chinatown P.O. Box 2094 Saipan, MP 96950

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - HON 595 Ala Moana Boulevard Honolulu, HI 96813-4999

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: REJANO, DANILO

A 076-210-552

Date of this notice: 6/28/2013

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

DorutL ct1/VL)
Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure Panel Members: Holmes, David 8.

yungc Userteam: Docket

Cite as: Danilo Rejano, A076 210 552 (BIA June 28, 2013)

.,

. U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

File:

A076 210 552

Saipan, MP

Date:

JUN 2 8 2013

In re: DANILO REJANO IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS CERTIFICATION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF DHS: Pro se

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Stephanie Gorman Assistant Chief Counsel

APPLICATION:

Motion

This matter, which has a somewhat convoluted procedural history, is presently before the Board on a motion to reopen. Specifically, on January 24, 2013, the Board sustained the Department of Homeland Security's ("DHS") appeal and remanded the matter back to the Immigration Court for further proceedings. Thereafter, the respondent failed to appear for his hearing and was ordered removed by the Immigration Judge on April 2, 2013. The respondent then filed a timely motion to reopen and rescind the in absentia order of removal with the Immigration Judge on April 15, 2013. Then, on April 24, 2013, the Immigration Judge denied the respondent's motion to reopen finding no exceptional circumstances excusing his failure to appear at his April 2, 2013, removal hearing. The respondent then filed the present motion to reopen and rescind the in absentia order of 1 removal with the Board on May 29, 2013. The DHS opposes the motion. We will take the Immigration Judge's decision denying the respondent's timely motion to reopen on certification. Given the totality of the circumstances, including the Immigration Judge's favorable credulity determination as well as the controlling circuit case law, we will grant the respondent's motion to reopen and rescind the in absentia order of removal entered on April 2, 2013. Further, these proceedings will be remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings during which the respondent should be provided an opportunity to apply for relief from removal on an updated record. Accordingly, the following orders shall be issued. ORDER: The motion to reopen is granted. FURTHER ORDER: The prior decisions are vacated.

The respondent initially filed his motion to reopen with the Board on May 7, 2013; however it

was rejected due to the respondent's failure to pay the requisite filing fee and to provide proof of service on the DHS. The respondent re-filed his motion with the necessary documentation and it was accepted for filing by the Board on May 29, 2013.

Cite as: Danilo Rejano, A076 210 552 (BIA June 28, 2013)

/. .

A076 210 552

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

FOR THE BOARD

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Cite as: Danilo Rejano, A076 210 552 (BIA June 28, 2013)