U.S.

Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review

(""

Board of Immigration Appeals

Office of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike. Suite 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 20530

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - CHI

Immigration Attorneys LLP

203 N LaSalle St, Suite 1550
Chicago, IL 60601-1259

525 West Van Buren Street

Chicago, IL 60607

Name: TE, JOSEFF HENRY GARGAR

A 205-279-813

Date of th is notice: 3/18/2015

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

Don.rtL cl1/Vt.J
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk

Enclosure
Panel Members:
Holmes, David B.

Usertea m: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index
Cite as: Joseff Henry Gargar Te, A205 279 813 (BIA March 18, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Sather, Brian

U.S. Department of Justice

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 20530

File:

A205 279 813

Chicago, IL

Date:

MAR 18 2015

In re: JOSEFF HENRY GARGAR TE

APPEAL AND MOTION

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:
ON BEHALF OF DHS:

Brian Sather, Esquire

Anastasie M. Senat
Assistant Chief Counsel

The respondent, a native and citizen of the Philippines, has appealed from the Immigration
Judge's July 12, 2013, decision denying his motion to reopen proceedings seeking the
opportunity to pursue an application for adjustment of status. On appeal, the respondent argues
that the Immigration Judge erred by failing to consider all of the evidence he submitted in
support of his motion.
In his decision, the Immigration Judge stated in part that the respondent had not provided

"any meaningful evidence apart from photographs" to support the bona fide nature of his
marriage. However, we agree with the respondent that the Immigration Judge did not reference
or address the other evidence submitted with the motion, which included various letters of
support and evidence of joint bank accounts and vehicle ownership. As such, the record will be
remanded to allow the Immigration Judge to further address the respondent's evidence in support
of his motion to reopen these proceedings. Given the delay in this matter, the parties should be
provided the opportunity to submit updated information and evidence relevant to the issue
whether reopening of these proceedings is warranted.
ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further consideration and
entry of a new decision.

FOR THE BOARD

Cite as: Joseff Henry Gargar Te, A205 279 813 (BIA March 18, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMMIGRATION COURT
525 W.

VAN BUREN,

CHICAGO,

IL

SUITE 500
60607

Sather,

Brian

203 N LaSalle St Suite 1550

Chicago,

IL

60601
FILE A 205-279-813

IN THE MATTER OF
TE,

DATE:

Nov 29,

2013

JOSEFF HENRY GARGAR

UNABLE TO FORWARD

NO ADDRESS PROVIDED

ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION

JUDGE.

THIS DECISION

IS FINAL UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED WITH THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

---

WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE MAILING OF THIS WRITTEN DECISION.
SEE THE ENCLOSED FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPERLY
YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL,

ATTACHED

DOCUMENTS,

PREPARING YOUR APPEAL.

AND FEE OR FEE WAIVER REQUEST

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

MUST BE MAILED TO:

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

5107

Leesburg Pike,

FALLS CHURCH,

VA

Suite 2000

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 ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION 242B{c) (3) OF THE IMMIGRATION AND
SECTION 1252B(c} {3}
8

u.s.c.

NATIONALITY ACT,

IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS OR

SECTION 1229a(c) (6) IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS.

TO REOPEN,

U.S.C.

SECTION 240(c)(6),
IF YOU FILE A MOTION

YOUR MOTION MUST BE FILED WITH THIS COURT:

IMMIGRATION COURT
525 W.

VAN BUREN,

CHICAGO,

IL

SUITE 500

60607

OTHER:

COURT CLERK
IMMIGRATION COURT
CC:

GEOFFERY GILPIN,

525 W.

VAN BUREN,

CHICAGO,

IL,

ASST.
SUITE

60607

CHIEF COUNSEL,
701

DHS

FF

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Immigration Attorneys LLP

:-f'.)
'i;

i''.r

.tt

,,. ..

'

'

( ...

S'

:....

"'

/.'-.,

....... ./

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review
Immigration Court Chicago

In the Matter of:

Case No.: A205 279 8 13

Docket:
Respondent/Applicant

IN Removal Proceedings

ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

Upon consideration of respondent's/applicant's

Motion to Reconsider an Immigration Judge's decision

_X_ Motion to Reopen proceedings

filed in the above entitled matter, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the motion
_

be granted.
be denied for the reasons indicated below. 1

obert D. Vinikoor
Immigration Judge
Date: November 29, 20 13
_I/ The respondent's motion to reopen fails to meet the requirements for reopening under 8
C.F.R. 1003.23(b)(3). First, the record reflects that the respondent appeared at a final hearing on
July 12, 2013 and testified that he is 32 years old, single and separated from his ex-girlfriend and
child. The respondent requested solely voluntary departure in lieu of removal and never
indicated that he was engaged or planned to marry a United States citizen. The respondent's
motion contends that he married a United States citizen on September 27, 20 13 and that an I-130

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Joseff heruy Te

....

c,.), .
."

-;;r

A'

petition has been filed on his behalf. However, the respondent's marriage occurred after he
was under a final order of departure and his motion is not supported by affidavits or any other
persuasive evidence that this marriage was not entered into for immigration purposes. The
government attorney opposes reopening. Given the fact that the respondent never previously
indicated that he had entered into a new relationship with a United States citizen and the absence
of any meaningful evidence apart from photographs, I believe the respondent has not shown that
its likely the I- 130 petition will be granted in his case. Accordingly, I find the respondent's
Dec. 253 (BIA 2002).

Matter of Verlarde, 23 l&N

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

motion must be denied after considering the factors mentioned in