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 22041

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - NYC

26 Federal Plaza, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10278

Name: RAPAVA, GIORG

A 077-018-104
Date of this notice: 10/26/2016

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

DOYUtL C

lVv'l.)

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Liebowitz, Ellen C
Guendelsberger, John
Holiona, Hope Malia

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
Cite as: Giorg Rapava, A077 018 104 (BIA Oct. 26, 2016)

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

Blaisdell, Matthew William

Attorney at Law
505 59th St., 2nd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11220

...,-

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A077 018 104 - New York, NY

Date:

OCT 2 6 2016

In re: GIORGRAPAVA

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Matthew William Blaisdell, Esquire
APPLICATION: Change of venue
The respondent has filed an interlocutory appeal from the Immigration Judge's
May 31, 2016, decision granting the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) motion to
change venue. The DHS has not filed a response. We find it appropriate to exercie our
jurisdiction over this case and. address the merits of this appeal. The Immigration Judge's
decision in this matter does not demonstrate that she appropriately balanced all of the relevant
factors for determining whether good cause was established for a venue change.
Matter ofRahman, 20 I&N Dec. 480 (BIA 1992). Rather, it appears the DHS made an oral
motion before the Immigration Judge and the Immigration Judge issued a summary order
granting the motion. Considering the entirety of the circumstances presented, we will remand
the record to the Immigration Court for further proceedings for a more complete development of
the facts pertinent to good cause for a change of venue, and for a new decision on the DHS' s
motion. See 8 C.F.R. I003.l(d)(3); Matter ofRahman, supra. By returning the record, we are
not rendering a judgment on the ultimate question of whether a change of venue is appropriate.
Based on the foregoing, the following order will be entered.
ORDER: The interlocutory appeal is sustained and the Immigration Judge's order granting
the DHS motion to change venue to Atlanta, GA is vacated.
FURTHER ORDER: The record is returned to the Immigration Court in New York, NY, for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion and for the entry of a new decision.

..Ml. -

Cite as: Giorg Rapava, A077 018 104 (BIA Oct. 26, 2016)

. &.i#...6.&Al&

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS