U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals

Office of the Clerk

5/07 Leesburg Pike. Suite 2000

Falls Church, Virginia 2204/

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

Reyes, Leslie, Esq. DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - LOS
Reyes & Schroeder Associates, P.C. 606 S. Olive Street, 8th Floor
1300 W. Beverly Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90014
Montebello, CA 90640

Name: CASTANEDA GALINDO, IGNACIO A 095-726-150

Date of this notice: 4/10/2017

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

Sincerely,

r-.._.,

Cynthia L. Crosby
Acting Chief Clerk

Enclosure
Panel Members:
Grant, Edward R.

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index

Cite as: Ignacio Castaneda Galindo, A095 726 150 (BIA April 10, 2017)

lf.S. Department of Justice Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A095 726 150 - Los Angeles, CA Date:

APR 1 0 2017
In re: IGNACIO CASTANEDA GALINDO a.k.a. Ignacio Castaneda a.k.a. Ignacio Galindo

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

APPEAL

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Leslie Reyes, Esquire

APPLICATION: Continuance

The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, appealed the Immigration Judge's decision,
dated July 19, 2016, which denied his request for a continuance and ordered his removal from
the United States. The record will be remanded.

We review an Immigration Judge's findings of fact for clear error; but questions of law,
discretion, judgment, and all other issues in appeals are reviewed de novo. 8 C.F.R.
1003.l(d)(3)(i), (ii). It is the respondent's burden to establish eligibility for relief from
removal. See section 240(c)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
1229a(c)(4)(A); 8 C.F.R. 1240.8(d).

Upon our review, we find the evidence submitted by the respondent on appeal should be
considered by the Immigration Judge. See Matter of Sanchez Sosa, 25 I&N Dec. 807, 815 (BIA
2012) (recognizing that a continuance should not be granted where it is being sought "as a
dilatory tactic to forestall the conclusion of removal proceedings"). The respondent provided a
filing receipt for, and copy of, the U-visa application and the corresponding police report to
establish prima facie eligibility. See id. In light of the foregoing, we will remand the record to
the Immigration Judge for further consideration. Accordingly, the following order will be
entered.

ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further consideration of the
evidence submitted by the respondent on appeak

Cite as: Ignacio Castaneda Galindo, A095 726 150 (BIA April 10, 2017)
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

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

File: A095-726-150 July 19, 2016

In the Matter of

)
IGNACIO CASTANEDA GALINDO ) IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
)
RESPONDENT )

CHARGE: Present without being admitted or paroled.

APPLICATION: Continuance.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ROSA REYES

ON BEHALF OF OHS: HEIDI B. LOTHIAN

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

The respondent is a native and citizen of Mexico who was placed in removal
proceedings by issuance of the Notice to Appear dated November 13, 2014. He was
charged with being removable from the United States because he is present without

being admitted or paroled. The respondent admitted the allegations of fact and the
Judge in Adelanto sustained the charge of removability. The respondent designated
Mexico as the country of removal.
The respondent expressed to the Judge in Adelanto that he would be seeking a
U Visa. The Judge reset the matter for filing an 1-589 and a U Visa on February 5,

1
2015. It was reset to March 4 for that purpose. The respondent subsequently bonded

out of custody and appeared before the Court in Los Angeles on November 12, 2015,

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

and this Court reset his case to March 29, 2016, at 8:00 a.m., so that he could file his

1-589 and proof that the U Visa had been filed. At the resumed hearing on March 29,

the respondent's attorney failed to appear. The Court reset the matter to April 7, 2016,

at 8:00 a.m., for counsel to appear, and for the respondent to again file his 1-589 and

proof the U Visa had been filed. The matter was adjourned to April 11, 2016. On

April 11, 2016, the respondent was again given until July 11, 2016 to file the relief,

which he had previously said was going to be an 1-589 and a U Visa, and at that time he

had a new attorney. Counsel did not have an 1-589, and at that time the U Visa was

incomplete, so it was not filed with the Court, or proof that it had been filed. And,

furthermore, there was a statement that the respondent would need a waiver for the

U Visa. So the matter was reset to today for the respondent to again file the 1-589 and

proof of a U Visa filing.

The respondent did come to court today with proof of the U Visa filing but no

copy of the U Visa application. Again, there was no 1-589, and counsel initially indicated

that there would not be an 1-589 filed. The Government asked the Court to proceed and

issue a decision. Counsel then said well maybe they could file an application on

generalized fear of returning. Government counsel opposed because the respondent

has had ample opportunity to file an 1-589.

The Court is denying the respondent's application for a continuance to file an

1-589 because the respondent has failed to establish good cause for any further

continuances for this application. First, the respondent has been given ample

opportunity to file this application, and without reasonable explanation has failed to do

so. Second, the respondent filed a receipt showing that a U Visa application was filed,

A095-726-150 2 July 19, 2016

 ""1-

but did not bring the application itself to give the Court an opportunity to determine if a

continuance is warranted for adjudication of the U Visa. And third, the respondent has

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

already informed the Court that the waiver application has not yet been submitted with

the U Visa, so he is not even at this time prima facie eligible for that relief.

This matter was placed on the Court's calendar back in November of 2014, and

in July of 2016 the respondent has not filed any relief application with the Court, and in

fact, indicated he would not be until he realized that there is no reason for the Court to

keep it on the calendar, and then his attorney belatedly said that well he could file one

on the general conditions. The Court does not find that any of the reasons given for not

being ready to timely file the 1-589 amounts to good cause, and so the Court is denying

the request for a continuance to file the 1-589, and to adjudicate the U Visa. The Court

notes that the respondent can still have his U Visa adjudicated, notwithstanding the

Court's order in this case, and it will not affect his eligibility to have the U Visa

adjudicated. But since there is no relief pending before the Court there is no reason for

the Court to keep this on its calendar.

The respondent is not seeking any relief from removal and deportation.

Accordingly, the Court is ordering the respondent removed and deported from the

United States to Mexico on the charge contained in the Notice to Appear.

ROSE PETERS
Immigration Judge

A095-726-150 3 July 19, 2016