U.S.

Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals Qfjice of the Clerk

5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 20530

Costas, Weronika K., Esq The Costas Network Law Center 2000 Auburn Drive., Suite 200 Beachwood, OH 44122

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - CLE 1240 E. 9th St., Room 585 Cleveland, OH 44199

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: RANGEL-YLLESCAS, ISMAEL

A 201-101-348

Date of this notice: 10/17/2013

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

DorutL cf1AA)
Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members: Grant, Edward R.

I \

j ) -, ', 1 } ', :

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Ismael Rangel-Yllescas, A201 101 348 (BIA Oct. 17, 2013)

'

Executive Office for Immigration Review Falls Church, Vuginia 22041

U.S. Department of Justice

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

File:

A201 I 01 348 - Cleveland,

OH

Date:

OClJ 7 20t3

In re: ISMAEL RANGEL-YLLESCAS a.k.a. Ismael Yllesca Saldana-Rangel IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF DHS: Weronika K. Costas, Esquire

Victoria Chirstian Deputy Chief Counsel

APPLICATION: Voluntary departure

The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, has filed a timely appeal of the Immigration Judge's decision dated January 16, 2013, denying the respondent voluntary departure and ordering his removal from the United States. On appeal, counsel for the respondent points out that the respondent was pro se below, and that the Immigration Judge did not advise the respondent of the forms of relief for which he might be eligible, including pre-conclusion voluntary departure and post-conclusion voluntary departure. See Matter of C-B-, 25 I&N Dec. 888 (BIA 2012); Matter of Cordova, 22 I&N Dec. 966 (BIA 1999). Due to the circumstances presented in this case, we find that a remand is warranted. Upon remand, the Immigration Judge should consider the respondent for all forms of relief for which he appears eligible at that time. Accordingly, the following order will be entered. ORDER: The record is remanded to the entry of a new decision consistent with the forego

ation Judge for further proceeding s and the pinion.

Cite as: Ismael Rangel-Yllescas, A201 101 348 (BIA Oct. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT CLEVELAND, OHIO

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

File:

A201-101-348

January 16,

2013

In the Matter of

ISMAEL RANGEL-YLLESCAS RESPONDENT

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

CHARGES:

Section 212(a) (6) (A) (i) Nationality Act,

of the Immigration and in that you are an

as amended,

alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled or who arrived in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General.

APPLICATIONS:

None.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF OHS:

PRO SE Esquire

THORIN FREEMAN,

Assistant Chief Counsel

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE The respondent is a 23-year-old male born March 10, according to the Form I-213, this matter. 1989,

which is marked as Exhibit 2 in

The respondent is a native and citizen of Mexico. on May 22, 2012,

The respondent was issued a Notice to Appear

which is marked as Exhibit 1 in this matter.

That Notice to 2012. 2012,

Appear was personally served on the respondent on May 22, At a Master Calendar hearing conducted on December

5,

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

the respondent appeared before the Court and acknowledged receipt of a copy of the Notice to Appear. The respondent was The

given a copy of the list of free legal service providers. Court explained the Notice to Appear and explained the respondent's rights in these removal proceedings. respondent requested an opportunity to obtain The

counsel prior to

the Court proceeding further and this matter was rescheduled to January 16, On 2013. 16, 2013, the respondent appeared before the The Court inquired as

January

Court and was not represented by counsel.

to the truth of the factual allegations in the Notice to Appear. The respondent informed the Court that factual allegations one and two are true and that he had first entered the United States at an unknown location on the border of the year 2008. United States in the

The respondent had no visa to enter the United

States and was not admitted or paroled after inspection by an Immigration officer. The respondent informed the Court that he

has not left the United States since that time. The Court finds, based on the respondent's answers, that

the respondent is an alien present in the United being admitted or paroled. He is therefore

States without

inadmissible as

charged and consequently the Court finds,

by clear and

A201-101-348

January 16,

2013

convincing evidence,

that the respondent is removable.

The respondent designated Mexico as the country for removal.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

The respondent informed the Court that he has no fear of returning to Mexico. The respondent also informed the Court

that he has no travel document nor does he have funds with which to purchase transportation to Mexico. As the respondent has been found removable by clear and convincing evidence and as there appears to be no form of relief from removal for which the respondent is currently eligible, including voluntary departure, order. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondent be removed from the United States to Mexico. the Court will make the following

January

16,

2013

P1ease see the next page or e1ectronic siqnature

D.

WILLIAM EVANS, Judge

JR.

Immigration

A201-101-348

January 16,

2013

,,

1 \"
' .

//s// Immigration Judge 9,

D.

WILLIAM EVANS,

JR.

evansw on April

2013 at

10:04 AM GMT

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

A201-101-348

January 16,

2013