AHMED, AHMED DAHY ABDELGHANY

A059-671-140
ADELANTO DETENTION CENTER
10400 RANCHO ROAD
ADELANTO, CA 92301
Name: AHMED, AHMED DAHY ABDELG ...
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Offce fr Immigration Review
8aardafImmtgatianappeals
u[ceafthec|erk
J!0Lccs0urgI8c, uIlcJ000
OsLhurch, rgnO J0JJ0
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel - LOS
606 S. Olive Street, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014
A 059-671-140
Date of this notice: 7/30/2014
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Kendall-Clark, Molly
Sincerely,
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
"|1V |ZP
Userteam: Docket
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
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: Ahmed Dahy Abdelghany Ahmed, A059 671 140 (BIA July 30, 2014)
U.S. Deparment of Justice L080B 0lh080 0H @80Bew|

LX00lV L0 Hl mml8ll0 KVW

, -.+
88 Lh06h, l820530
.`

-
WWW# WW## W#WWWWWWWWW WW
File: A059 671 140 " Los Angeles, CA Date:
JUL J 11

.
. >
.
'In re: AHMED DAHY ABDELGHANY AHED a.k.a. Ahed Ahmed Day Abd Elgay .

a.k.a. Ahmed Dahy Abdelghany Aed
.

-
*-
-

^ -
:,,` t
LRMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

MOTION
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Pro se
APPLICATION: Reopening
ORDER:
The respondent has appealed a Immigration Judge's May 19, 2014, decision denying his
motion to reopen proceedings in which he was ordered removed in absentia on October 22, 2013.
Te Board denied his request fr a stay of removal on May 19, 2014. Te record will be
remanded.
In denying the respondent's motion, te Immigation Judge cited his claims regading hs
fter's death and his mother's illness ad sugery, ad fund that the sae "could be considered
exceptional circumstaces." However, as the respondent had not provided coroboratve
evidence of these claims, the Immigration Judge fund his unsupported assertions insuffcient to
support reopening. While the Immigration Judge also noted a "lack of diligence" on te
respondent's pa, we observe that he fled his motion to reopen less ta two months afer te
Imigation Judge1s in absentia decision.
On appeal the respondent has submitted evidence regading his fther's deat ad hs
mother's surgery, and has essentially asked tat the same be considered in conjucton wt hs
motion. Mater of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464 (BIA 1992) (regarding motions to remad). As
tis evidence is material to his motion, ad in light of the Board's limited fct-fndng autorit
on appeal, we fnd it appropriate to remand the record to allow the Immgation Judge to
consider these documents, and any other relevat evidence the paies may ofer on remad.
Accordingly, the record is remaded to te Immigration Judge fr fer proceedings.
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: Ahmed Dahy Abdelghany Ahmed, A059 671 140 (BIA July 30, 2014)

-

`

.
.
UITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMMIGRATION COURT
606 SOUTH OLIV ST.
AHMED, AHMED DAHY ABDELGHANY
9475 SUN MEAON CT
RCHO CUCAMONG, CA 91730
IN THE MATTER OF
AHMED, AHMED DAHY ABDELGHAY
LOS ANGELES, CA 90014
FILE A 059-671-140
UNABLE TO FORWARD - NO ADRESS PROVIDED
DATE: Feb 21, 2014
ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE. THIS DECISION
IS FINAL ULESS A APPEAL IS FILED WITH THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE MILING OF THIS WRITTEN DECISION.
SEE THE ENCLOSED FORMS A INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPERLY PREPARING YOUR APPEAL.
YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL, ATTACHED DOCUMENTS, A FEE OR FEE WAIVER REQUEST
MUST BE MAILED TO: BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
FALLS CHURCH, VA 20530
ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE AS THE RESULT
OF YOUR FAILURE ;TO APPEAR AT YOUR SCHEDULED DEPORTATION OR REMOVAL HEARING.
THIS DECISION IS FINAL UNLESS A MOTION TO REOPEN IS FILED IN ACCORDACE
WITH SECTION 242B(c) (3) OF THE IMMIGRATION AD NATIONALITY ACT, d U.S.C.
SECTION 1252B(c) (3) IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS OR SECTION 240(c) (6)'
d \..!. SECTION 1229a(c) (6) IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS. IF YOU FILE A MOTION
TO REOPEN, YOUR MOTION MUST BE FILED WITH THIS COURT:
IMMIGRATION COURT
606 SOUTH OLIVE ST.

LOS AGELES, CA 90014

; OTHER:

\
CC:

FF
*Y
-*`
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

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMMIGRATION COURT
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
File Number: A @671140
In the Matter of:
AHMED,
Ahmed Dahy Abdelghany
Respondent
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DETAINED
IN RMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
CHARGE: Section 237(a){l)(D)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (IA)
(2013) termination of status afer admission or adustment as an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence on a conditional bais under
section 216 or 216A of the !NA
APPLICATIONS: Motion to Reopen and Request fr a Stay of Removal
ON BEHALF OF THE RSPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF THE DHS:
Pro Se, C/O Custodial Offcer
Adelanto Detention Facility West
10400 Racho Road
Adelanto, Califria 92301
Lee P. Crystal, Senior Atorney
U.S. Department of Homelad Security
606 South Olive Street, Eighth Floor
Los Angeles, Califria 90014
DECISION AND ORERS OF THE IMMIGRTION JUDGE
I. Procedural Histor
Ahed Dahy Abdelghay Ahmed (Respondent) is a native and citizen of Egypt. On
June 27, 2013, the U.S. Departent of Homeland Security (DHS) sered Respondent by regula
mal wUa Notice to Appear (NTA). See Ex. 1. In the NTA, the DHS alleged that Respondent:
(1) is not a citizen or national of the United States;
(2) is a native ad citizen of Egypt;
(3) was, on October 25, 2010, lawflly admitted to te United States fr permanent
residence on a conditional basis; and
(4) on October 26, 2012, had that stats terminated because he filed to fle a For I-751,
Petition to Remove the CLndition5 LO Residence.
Based on tese fctual allegations, the DHS charged Respondent as removable pursuat
to IA 237(a)(l)(D)(i). Id. Jurisdiction vested and removal proceedings commenced when the
. W
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
DRS fled the NTA wit this Cour on July 2, 2013. Id.; See 8 C.F.R. 1003.14(a) (2013).
On August 15, 2013, Respondent filed to appear fr his scheduled hearing. However,
this Court fund that the Notice of Heaing (NOH), sent by regular mail, was incorrectly
addressed.
1
Ex. 2. This Cour corrected the addess ad on August 15, 2013, sent a second NOH
to Respondent at his corect address. Ex. 3.
On October 22, 2013, Respondent filed to appea fr his scheduled hearing. This Court
proceeded in absentia, ad based on documentary evidence submited by the DRS, fud that
Respondent is removable by clea, convincing and unequivocal evidence. Consequently, tis
Cout ordered Respondent removed to Egypt.
On December 31, 2013, Respondent fled the pending Motion to Reopen and Request' fr
a Stay of Removal (Motion), alleging therein that he filed to appea fr his October 23, 2013
hearing because of exceptional circumstances beyond his control. See Motion at 1, 4.
On December 31, 2013, the DRS submitted an Opposition to Respondent's Motion
(Opposition). In its Opposition, the DHS contends that Respondent's Motion fils to establish
that his failure to appear was due to exceptiona circumstances; and that a stay of removal should
not be issued because Respondent has not established ay likelihood of success on his pending
motion to reopen. See Opposition at 2-4.
For the fllowing reasons, this Court will deny Respondent's Motion.
II. Law and Analysis
A. Motion to Reopen
This Cou may rescind in absentia order of removal upon a motion fled within 180
days of the date of the order if the alien demonstates that he filed to appear because of
exceptional circumstances beyond his control. 8 C.F.R. 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). Exceptional
circumstances include the serious illness of the respondent or the serious illness or death of the
respondent's spouse, child, or parent. INA 240(e)(l ). Exceptional circumstances do not
include less compelling circumstaces. Id. In deternng wheter a respondent's motion raises
exceptional circumstances, this Court must examine the "totality of the circumstaces." Matter
ofW-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503, 509 (BIA 1996); Mater of Shaar, 21 l&N Dec. 541, 550 (BIA 1996).
The respondent bears the burden of supporing the motion with specifc, detailed evidence to
corroborate the claim of exceptional circumstances. Celis-Castellano N. Ashcrof, 298 F.3d 888,
890 (9th Cir. 2002); Matter of Beckfrd, 22 l&N Dec. 1216, 1218 (BIA 2000) (citing Matter of
J-J-,
21 I&N Dec. 976, 984-85 (BIA 1997)).
In his motion, Respondent alleges numerous circumstaces which prevented him fom
attending his hearing date on October 23, 2013, including: "an accident that [he] sufered;" his
fther had passed away; he frgot about his cour date; he was mugged twice te month befre
his cou date; and he had surgery prior tohis court date. See Motion at 1, 4. While some of
This Cour notes that the NOH was not r
e
tn
e
d as und
e
liv
e
rabl
e
.
7 .. Wr $ .^I. .. . . .....
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
" these sitations could be considered exceptional circumstances, e.g. death of a parent or surgery;
Respondent has filed to submit ay specifc, detailed evidence to corroborate his claims.
2
Celis
Castellano, 298 F.3d at 890; see also 8 C.F.R. 1003.23(b)(3). Witout corroborating evidence
to suppor tem, Respondent's asserions are insuffcient to demonstate that he missed his
heaing due to te deat of his fther or his surger, or to any other exceptional circumstace
beyond his control. As such, this Cour fnds, uder the totality of the circumstances, that
Respondent has filed to establish exceptional circumstances that would excuse his absence and
warrant reopening of his proceedings.
Moreover, this Cour fnds that Respondent's lack of diligence undercuts his claim. See
Matter of J-P-, 22 I&N Dec. 33, 34 (BIA 1998) (noting the respondent's lack of due diligence
and concluding that he filed to establish that a serious headache rose to the level of exceptional
circumstaces). As in J-P-, Respondent in the instat mater neglected to contact this Cour on
te day of his hearng to explain his absence. Id. at 3 5. Respondent has not ofered an
explanation fr not contacting this Court, other tha that he frgot about his hearing. As a result,
it appeas that Respondent was only motivated to fle the present motion on account of his
current detention by te DHS.
B. Request for a Stay of Removal
In order to be eligible fr a stay, Respondent must make stong showing that he is
likely to succeed on the merits." Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir. 2011).
Because this Cour will deny Respondent's motion to reopen, it fnds no basis on which to grant
his request fr a stay of removal.
Accordingly, the fllowng orders shall be entered:
ORDERS
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's motion to reopen be DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERD that Respondent's request fr a stay of removal be
DENIED.
Date: ~
Scott D. Laurent
Immigration Judge
T.. ..Y 1 . .....S ... . . "
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