Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3


Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board oflmmigration Appeals
Office of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 22041

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - DAL

125 E. John Carpenter Fwy, Ste. 500
Irving, TX 75062-2324


A 208-090-238
Date of this notice: 6/2/2016

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

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Panel Members:

Grant, Edward R

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

Cite as: Jose Emilio Alvarado A208 090 238 (BIA June 2, 2016)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Chavez, Nicolas
Chavez & Valko, LLP
10830 N. Central Expressway, Suite 400
Dallas, TX 75231

U.S. Department of Justice

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A208 090 238 - Dallas,TX



JUN-2 20I


Nicolas Chavez,Esquire

Lynn G. Javier
Assistant Chief Counsel

APPLICATION: Continuance; administrative closure

The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals the decision of the Immigration
Judge,dated March I,2016,denying his requests for a continuance and alternative departure and
ordering his removal from the United States. 1 The Department of Homeland Security is opposed
to the respondent's appeal.
We review Immigration Judges' findings of fact for clear error. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i).
We review questions of law,discretion,and judgment,and all other issues in appeals de novo.
8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(ii).
Considering the totality of the circumstances presented in this case, we will remand the
record to the Immigration Judge to provide the respondent with an additional opporturiity to
present evidence to support his claim that "good cause" exists for a continuance of these removal
proceedings or that these proceedings should be administratively closed while he pursues a claim
to derivative nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(U)(ii)(II) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act,8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(U) (ii)(II). See 8 C.F.R. 1003.29,1240.6; Matter of
Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688,688-89 (BIA 2012).
An alien seeking U nonimmigrant status should not be granted a continuance "as a dilatory
tactic to forestall the conclusion of removal proceedings" where it is unlikely that his application
will be granted. See Matter of Sanchez Sosa, 25 I&N Dec. 807,815 (BIA 2012). However, in
the present case, the respondent has presented evidence that, subsequent to the Immigration
Judge's decision, he married a primary applicant for U visa status. In tum, she has filed a
Petition for Qualifying Family Member of U-1 Recipient (Form I-918A) on behalf of the
respondent with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS").

The respondent,through counsel,has conceded that he is subject to removal from the United
States under the provisions of section 237(a)(l)(B) of the Act,8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(l)(B) (I.J. at 2;
Exhs. 1,3; Tr. at 7).
Cite as: Jose Emilio Alvarado A208 090 238 (BIA June 2, 2016)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net


A208 090 238

As the respondent is currently detained, it may be appropriate for his spouse to request that
USCIS expeditiously consider her applications. However, the respondent's current detention is
not, in itself, an independent ground to decline to further continue these proceedings. See Matter
'of C-B-, 25 I&N Dec. 888, 890 (BIA 2012) ("While it is critical that a detained docket move
efficiently, it is also essential that Immigration Judges be mindful of a respondent's invocation of
procedural rights and privileges.").

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

Cite as: Jose Emilio Alvarado A208 090 238 (BIA June 2, 2016)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

For the reasons set forth above, we will remand the record to the Immigration Judge for the
respondent to renew his request for a continuance and administrative closure. However, at the
present time, we express no opinion regarding the ultimate outcome of these proceedings. The
following order is entered.