Kaufman, Alan M., Esq.

Kaufman Law Ofce

220 Montgomery Street, Suite 966
San Francisco, CA 94104-0000
Name: SJNGH-LUBANA, SULAKHAN
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Ofce of the Clerk
5107 leesb11rg l'ike, S11ite 2000
Fals C/111rc1. Vrginia 22041
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel SFR
P .0. Box 26449
San Francisco, CA 94126-6449
A087-489-770
Date of this notice: 4/18/2011
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Adkins-Blanch, Charles K.
Guendelsberger, John
Kendall-Clark, Molly
Sincerely,
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Sulakhan Singh-Lubana, A087 489 770 (BIA April 18, 2011)
U.5.Deparent of Justce
Exetv Ofc fr Igton Re
D0uo te B 0Img00u{
FalCbVu201
File: A087 489 770 San Fracisco, CA
In re: 5LASIGH-LUAA
URMOVA PROCEEDIGS
APEA
Date:
ON BE OF RESPONDENT: Ala M. Kaufan, Esquire
APLICATION: Repening
AP 18 Z011
The respondent, a native ad citen of India, appeals the May 12, 2010, decision of the
Immigaton Judge denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. The respondent was ordeed
remove in absnta on March 18, 2010. The appel w be sustaine and the rerd w b
remanded.
A order of removal that is ise fllow prc gs conducte in absenta pu to
section 240(b)(S) of the Immigton ad Natonalit Act (Act), 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5) 8 C.F.R
1003 .23(b )( 4)t), may brde only upon a moton to repen fle w180 days afer the
date of the order of removal uthe repondent demonsrates that he failed to appea beause of
eceptona O, or upon a moton to repen fle at ay te u the repondent
demonstrates that he did not reeive proper notce of the tme ad plac of the hearing, or that he was
in feer or state cstody ad fle to appe throug no fult of his ow. See e.g. Ma er of
Gonlez-Lpez, 20 I&N Dec. 644 (IA 1993). "The ter 'exceptional circumstaces' refes to
exceptonal circces (such as serous illness of the aie or serous illness or deh of a
immeiate relative of the alien, but not including less compelling circumstances) beond the control
of the aien." Seon 240( e )(1) of the Act
The respondent contends that he estalished exceptonal circumstaces fr his failure to atend
the heaing schedule fr Mach 18, 2010. In support of hs claim he msubmitted a afdavt in
which he states that his filure to appe was the result of an unexected delay at the airpor aising
fom the Trsporaton Secty Astaton's (TSA) challenge to his identty document, which
wa issue to Nby the South Texas Detenton Complex. While delays at aors resltng fom
sty s nng ae generally frele and similar cs involvng tf c delays have ben
deerine not conte eceptional circces
,
we fnd that the respondent
,
s situaton u
distnguishable be of the er delay ag fom TSA's initial rejeon of h
idencton document which wa ultmately acpte. Moreover, his motion to reopen procegs
wa fle shorly afer the isce of the i absenta orde ad wa tmely fle put to Seon
240(b )( S)(C) of the Act. Base upon the parcular fcts presented in this cae, we therefre fnd that
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Sulakhan Singh-Lubana, A087 489 770 (BIA April 18, 2011)
9
A087 489 770
the respondet demonsate exceptonal Ofr Nfure to appe. Accordingly, the
appe is sstained.
ORE: Te moton to rpen is gted, and te reord is remade to the Igaton
Cour rfrer proceedings.
2
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Sulakhan Singh-Lubana, A087 489 770 (BIA April 18, 2011)
. `
UITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRTION REVIEW
IMMIGRATION COURT
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
u th6%Bll6t 0 bulBKhBu bu@h M 6 D0. +
e
ORDER OF THE IMMIGRTION JUDGE
Upon consideration of Respondent's Motion to Reopen, it is
HEREBY ORDERED that the motion be
D
GRNTED DENIED because:
D OHS does not oppose the motion
0 The respondent does not oppose the motion
0 A response to the motion has not been fled with the court
0 Good cause has been established fr the motion
The court agrees with the reasons stated in the opposition to the motion
D The motion is untimely per

0 Other:
*
Deadlines:

Date:
0 The application(s) fr relief must be fled by
i
- :+
D The respondent must comply with OHS biometrics instructi0y -
_:'f/

C
.
;

Q

Print Maggard Y
Immigration Judge
Certifcate of Service
This document was served by: ,Mail
[]Alien
[ ] Personal Service
Alien's Attorney To: [ ] Alien c/o Custodial Ofcer DHS

Date:\ -\ Q By: Court Staf"

I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t