Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Azulay, Ira, Esquire Immigration Attorneys, LLP 203 North LaSalle St, #1550 Chicago, IL 60601
OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - CHI 525 West Van Buren Street Chicago, IL 60607
A 097-324-516
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case. Sincerely,
DO>VtL cl1/Vt.)
Chief Clerk Donna Carr
Cite as: Pangiotis Tsaglas, A097 324 516 (BIA Mar. 18, 2014)
File:
Date:
MAR 1 S 2014
APPEAL AND MOTION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: CHARGE: Notice: Sec. 237(a)(l)(A), I&N Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(l)(A)] Ira Azulay, Esquire
Lodged: Sec. 237(a)(l)(B), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(l)(B)] In the United States in violation of law
further proceedings.
This case was previously before us on December 21, 20 I 0, when we remanded the record for The respondent, a native and citizen of Greece, has now filed a timely
appeal of an Immigration Judge's decision dated March 15, 2012. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent filed a motion to remand, based on his marriage to a United States citizen
and an application for adjustment of status. The Department of Homeland Security (''DHS") has
and judgment, and all other issues raised in appeals from decisions of Immigration Judges.
We review for clear error findings of fact, and review de novo all questions of law, discretion,
o!der, 696 F.3d 644 in which this case arises, we will remand the record. See Keathley v. d (ih Cir. 2012). In that case, the Seventh Circuit remanded the record for further exploration of voting. Findings of fact, sufficiently complete to analyze this case in the framework set forth in Keathley
v.
intervening decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,
factual issues potentially implicating the "official authorization" defense to a charge of unlawful
in the November 6, 2008 Immigration Judge decision. 1 We therefore conclude a remand is warranted.
1
Holder, were not made, either in the March 15, 2012 Immigration Judge decision, or
respondent indicating that he only voted because he had been sent a voter's registration card after
The November 6, 2008 decision quotes at length from what appears to be a letter from the
Cite as: Pangiotis Tsaglas, A097 324 516 (BIA Mar. 18, 2014)
ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings and the
Cite as: Pangiotis Tsaglas, A097 324 516 (BIA Mar. 18, 2014)
4LMJcU%
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
File:
A097-324-516
March 15,
2012
In the Matter of
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
CHARGES:
Section 237 (a) (1) (B) of the INA, as amended, in after admission as an non-immigrant under Section lOl (a) (15) of the Act, he remained in the United States for a time longer than permitted; Section 237 (a) (6) of the INA, as amended, in that any time after admission you voted in violation of any federal, State, or local constitution provision, statute, ordinance, or regulation.
APPLICATIONS:
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: STACY M. VEZSI, Esquire 203 North LaSalle Street, 1550 Chicago, Illinois 60601
ON BEHALF OF DHS: LYNN HOLLANDER, Esquire Department of Homeland Security 525 West Van Buren Street Chicago, Illinois 60607
ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE This matter is back from the Board of Immigration Appeals due to a decision dated December 21, 2010 which sustained the
respondent's appeal from a decision which this Judge entered on November 6, 2008, finding that the Government had established
that the respondent did unlawfully vote in a local election. The Board, in its decision dated December 21, 2010,
sustained the respondent's appeal and returned the matter to this Court in order to have the respondent pursue adjustment of status and remanded the decision for a determination of removability on the charges lodged. Apparently, there were two
charges which had been lodged at the time. was one, the second was the respondent, longer than allowed. footnote 2.
whether he remained
This footnote indicates that this judge apparently made no finding as to whether the respondent remained longer than allowed. At his remanded hearing, the respondent does not
contest the fact that he remained longer than allowed. Consequently, this charge has been sustained by clear and See 8 C.F.R. Section 1240. 8. This, in and
does not affect or preclude the respondent from He simply remained longer than
A097-324-516
He
would be eligible for adjustment of status through a citizen wife. It is the issue about whether the respondent voted in
or local or constitutional
determinative of whether the respondent is able to remain in the United States. The Department provided a group exhibit at Exhibit B. submission includes specific sub-sections beginning with lOILCSS/3-1, relating to the election "in the State of Illinois. " The exhibit submitted references the code and This
specifically the qualifications of voters in the state of Illinois, along with eligibility for individuals to sign the
requirements of permanent abodes in order constitute the residents within the meaning of the code, and other provisions
which relate to whether individuals are qualified to vote. The respondent submitted a group submission at C which indicates various Board decisions, along with the Yates The respondent also
submitted unreported Board decisions from 2010 and 2011 along with an appellate brief. The respondent argues in part that lOILCSS/29-12 requires a
A097-324-516
regulation is a violation of the Immigration Act if an individual has voted in violation of any of those laws. The
Government further argues that there is no requirement that intent be necessary in order to be rendered removable from the United States. The Government's argument has appealed the statute itself only requires that an individual who has voted in any federal, state, or local constitutional provision, regulation is inadmissible. statute, ordinance, or
appeal only if an individual is convicted of a misdemeanor offense. There, at lOILCSS/29-12, the Government must prove If
that an individual "knowingly" violated the code by voting. it is established that an individual knowingly violated in violation of the code, that individual would be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. There are distinctions.
Essentially, the
federal statute under the Immigration Act is a strict liability statute and an individual simply needs to vote, language in the statute. argument is dismissed. Given all of the other evidence in the record, including according to the
A097-324-516
all of the testimony included in the initial hearing which is incorporated herein by reference, it is the assessment of this and the Government
established by clear evidence that it was in violation of the Illinois code that is referenced in the proceeding paragraphs. Consequently, this Judge finds that the respondent is removable as charged in Section 237(a) (6) voted in a federal, state, statute, ordinance, of the INA to the extent that he
or regulation.
The respondent has requested adjustment of status given the fact that he is not eligible for a waiver because he was not residing permanently in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16 and, consequently, he could not reasonably believe at he is not eligible his
the time that he voted that he was a citizen, for a waiver under the Immigration Act. request for adjustment will be dismissed.
Consequently,
He
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondent's application for adjustment of status will be dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent be removed and
A097-324-516
March 15,
2012
&?tMt
ZA
uz;
,. .
,:
deported from the United States to Greece, Notice to Appear and in the I-261.
as charged in the
Date:
March 15,
2012.
A097-324-516
March 15,
2012
CERTIFICATE PAGE
I hereby certify that the attached proceeding before JUDGE CARLOS CUEVAS, in the matter of:
PANAGIOTIS TSAGLAS
A097-324-516
CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS
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.
: ':
. '
: : .;
. .
KATHERINE Y.
MULLEN
(Transcriber) Inc.
(Completion Date)