Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Of fice of the Clerk
5117 Leesburg Pike, Sui/<' 2000
Fals C111rc/1. Virgi11ia 2 :0. I
OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - KAN
2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 500
Kansas City, MO 64108
Name: BARASA, MIRRIAM NEKESA A 087-905-491
Date of this notice: 8/22/2013
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Grant, Edward R.
Sincerely,
|O C t
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Userteam: Docket
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t
&
R
e
f
u
g
e
e
A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
|
w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Mirriam Nekesa Barasa, A087 905 491 (BIA Aug. 22, 2013)
U.S. Deparment of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Im igation Review
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
File: A087 905 491-Kansa City, MO
I re: MI NKESA BASA
I RMOVAL PROCEEDIGS
APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONENT: Pro se
ON BEHALF OF DHS: Jayme Salinardi
Decisionofte Board of Imigation Appeals
Date:
AUG 2 2 2013
Acting Deputy Chief Counsel
APPLICATION: Continuance
The respondent, a native ad citizen of Kenya, has appealed fom the Imgation Judge's
decision dated Mach 1, 2012, which ganted a period of voluntary departure under section 240B
of the Immigaton and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229c. The record will be remaded.
The Boad reviews fndings of fct, including credibility deterinations, under a "clearly
eroneous" stadard. See Matter of R-S-H-, 23 I&N Dec. 629 (BIA 2003); 8 C.F.R.
1003.l(d)(3)(i). If the Boad deterines that an Immigation Judge's fndings of fct ae not
clealy eroneous, it may review de novo whether the fcts are sufcient to meet a applicable
legal standard. See Matter of A-S-B-, 24 I&N Dec. 493, 497 (BIA 2008).
At a master calendar hearing on February 3, 2011, the respondent was provided with a list of
attoreys. She was gated a continuance to obtain counsel ad advised that only one
continuance would be ganted fr that purose (Tr. at 4). At the hearing on March 1, 2012, the
respondent appeared and requested a continuace to obtain a attorey. The respondent
indicated that her attorey had ''backed out on her" (Tr. at 16). The Immigation Judge did not
question the respondent about who she had retained or the reason that the attorey was not in
court. Rather, the Imigation Judge advised the respondent that her case had been pending fr
a long time and there was nothing she could do to obtain another continuance to get new counsel
because he had previously told her she would not be given a second continuance fr that purose
(Tr. at 17, 20). Afer frther questioning, te Immigation Judge again referenced the period of
time that the respondent's case had been pending, and told her that while he would not gat a
continuance, she was qualifed fr voluntary depaure, ad he suggested to her that she take it
(Tr. at 17, 20). The respondent expressed a desire to have her case reviewed, but ultimately
accepted a period of voluntary depature (Tr. at 20-21). The Immigation Judge did not infor
the respondent that accepting a period of voluntary departure would require that she waive all
rigts to appeal. See section 240B(a) of te Imigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
1229c(a); 8 C.F.R. 1240.26(b)(I)(i)(D). The respondent subsequently fled a appeal to te
Board.
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t
&
R
e
f
u
g
e
e
A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
|
w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Mirriam Nekesa Barasa, A087 905 491 (BIA Aug. 22, 2013)
A087 905 491
Under the circumstances of this case, and baed on our recent decision i Mater of C-B-, 25
I&N Dec. 888 (BI 2012), whch wa decided afer the date of the hearng, we fnd it
appropriate to remand back to the Imigation Judge to provide the respondent with an
opportunity to pursue relief fom removal with the assistance of counsel.
ORER: The record is remaded to the Immigation Cour fr fher proceedings ad the
ent of a new decision.
2
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t
&
R
e
f
u
g
e
e
A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
|
w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Mirriam Nekesa Barasa, A087 905 491 (BIA Aug. 22, 2013)
1n LDe HLLeI O:
(}/"