U.S.

Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office ofthe Clerk

5107 Lee5burg Pike, S11ite 2000 Falls Church, Virgi11ia 22041

ZARZUELA,JENNSEYJOSUE INMATE#: 24246-038 (A044 821 167) INMATE HOUSING: CED 118 COUNTY RD., #206 HASKELL, TX 79521

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - DAL 125 E. John Carpenter Fwy, Ste. 500 Irving, TX 75062-2324

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: ZARZUELA, JENNSEY JOSUE

A044-821-167

Date of this notice: 4/5/2011

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

Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members: Miller, Neil P.

Cite as: Jennsey Josue Zarzuela, A044 821 167 (BIA April 5, 2011)

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review Falls.Church, Virginia 22041

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

File:

A044 821 167 - Haskell, TX

Date:

In re: JENNSEY JOSUE ZARZUELA IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Pro se

APR S 20n

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

ORDER: The respondent appeals from an Immigration Judge's February 22, 2011, summary order, which stated that the respondent had waived the right to appeal. The hnmigration Judge's order will be vacated, and the case remanded to the Immigration Court for further proceedings. The respondent, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, was charged with being subject to removal as an aggravated felon, based on a March 6, 2004, drug conviction. Removal hearings began on August 5, 2008, and were continued numerous times while the respondent pursued a claim to United States citizenship. The final hearing took place on February 22, 2011 (Tr. at 108). Although an Immigration Judge had, on August 5, 2008, reviewed his appeal rights with the respondent at a group hearing, the Immigration Judge did not go over these rights at the February 22, 2011, hearing with the respondent, who was proceeding pro se (Tr. at 15, 109). The Immigration Judge asked the respondent if he wished to "accept the order", but did not ask whether he wished to waive his right to appeal the decision, nor is there any indication that the respondent understood their final exchange to constitute a waiver of these rights (Tr. at 109). The respondent argues on the Notice of Appeal that the waiver of appeal was not knowingly made. We find that the respondent did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to appeal. Matter of Rodriguez-Diaz, 22 I&N Dec. 1320, 1322 (BIA 2000) (an unrepresented alien who accepts a decision as "final" does not effectively waive appeal where it was not made clear that such acceptance constitutes an irrevocable waiver of appeal rights).

The record will be remanded to the hlunigration Judge for preparation of a full decision. Upon preparation of the full decision, the Immigration Judge shall issue an order administratively returning the record to the Board. The hnmigration Judge shall serve the administrative return order on the respondent and the DHS. The Board will thereafter give the parties an opportunity to submit briefs in accordance with the regulations. consistent with this opinion. The hlunigration Judge's order of February 22, 2011, is, therefore, vacated, and the record is remanded to the hnmigration Court for further proceedings

FOR THE BOARD

Cite as: Jennsey Josue Zarzuela, A044 821 167 (BIA April 5, 2011)