Subhash Chandra

11414 West Center Rd, Suite 343

Omaha, NE 68144
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Of fice of the Clerk
Jl07Lccxburg|tkc, 5utcJ000
|0||x Lhurch, Irgud J0JJ0
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel - KAN
2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 500
Kansas City, MO 64108
Name: MONTEJO TRUJILLO, EDELMA M A 094-329-654
Date of this notice: 2/25/2014
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Wendtland, Linda S.
Sincerely,
|O : O
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
'l|!V~c. /
Useream: Docket
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
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
U.b.Department of Justce
Executive Ofce fr Immigation Review
Decision ofthe Board oflmmigration Appeals
Falls Chuch, Virginia 20530
File: A094 329 654 - Kansas City, MO
In re: EDELMA M MONTEJO TRUJILLO
I RMOVAL PROCEEDIGS
APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Subhash Chandra, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF OHS:
CHARGE.
Jennifer A. May
Assistant Chief Counsel
Date:
Notice: Sec. 212(a)(6)(A){i), I&N Act [8l! ] II8
=(a)()(^))|
Present without being admitted or paroled
APLICATION: Motion to reopen
rLb 2 0 2014
The respondent appeals te Imigraton Judge's April 16, 2012, decision denying her motion
to reopen. Te record will be remanded to the Immigration Judge fr frer proceedings
consistent wit this opinion and fr entry of a new decision.
This case was originally befre the Immigration Judge on April I, 20g when the
respondent was gated volunta deparure. Subsequently, on June 5, 2007, the Boad retred
the record to the Immigration Court wthout fher action, noting the respondent's then counsel
had waived appeal during the proceedings. On April 5, 2012, the respondent fled a motion to
reopen with the Imigration Judge alleging she was the victim of inefective assistance of
cousel during her prior proceedings and that her decision to take voluntary depaure was not
voluntary. On April I, 2012, the Immigration Judge denied the respondent's motion to reopen
in a terse decision. In paicula, the Immigration Judge denied the respondent's motion as
untimely, noting tat.she "was receiving legal advice fom an attorney afer [her original attorney]
whom she complains about." The Immigation Judge summarily concluded there is 'nothing to
justif [the respondent's] six year delay befre deciding to fle [the] motion."
We fnd that the Immigration Judge's decision denying the respondent's motion is
insufcient. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(ii) (20I3) (de nova review). In paicular, the
Immigation Judge did not specifcally address in anymeaingfl way the respondent's claim of
inefective assistance of counsel or that she did not want voluntay departre, and we
consequently cannot properly adjudicate the merits of d appeal of that decision. In this regard,
the Imigration Judge did not address any of the requirements set frth in our decision in Mater
of Lozada, II&N Dec. 637 (BIA I88), and/or whether te respondent met her burden of proof
uder Lozada. Nor does the Imigration Judge's decision refect any consideration of the
respondent's arguments concerng her reasons fr not learing of the alleged inefective
assistance of her frst attorey until she had contacted a third atorey (cuent counsel), her
9 \
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
A094 329 654
reasons fr not contacting curent counsel sooner, and her reasons fr not making a claim under
Lozada aganst the second attorey that she consulted. We canot uphold the Imigration
Judge's decision denying the respondent's motion to reopen as untimely where he did not
meangflly address ador consider her claim of inefective assistace of counsel which may
excuse the untimeliness of the motion. Thus, we fnd a remand is warated fr the Imigration
Judge to flly consider ad adjudicate the aguments made in the respondent's motion to reopen,
as well as her accompanying motion fr a change of venue, ad to issue a new decision.
Accordingly, the record will be remanded to the Immigation Judge fr fher proceedings
consistent with this opinon ad fr entry of a new decision.
ORER: The record is remaded to the Immigration Judge fr frther proceedings
consistent with this opinion ad fr entry of a new decision.

ORTHEOA
1 However, we fnd no merit in te respondent's contention that jurisdiction to adjudicate her
motion to reopen resided in the Immigration Cour in Chicago, Illinois, rather tha Kasas City,
Missour. Te record indicates that although a Immigration Judge in Chicago presided over the
previous proceedings by televideo, those proceedings were docketed in Kasas City and the
paies appeaed at te Immigration Court there. Therefre, te Immigration Judge in Ka
City properly adjudicated te respondent's motion to reopen. Te flig instuctions to whch the
respondent cites relate only to the physical location of the Imigration Cour with admistrative
contol over te record of proceedings, not to adjudication authority. We recognze that the
United States Court of Appeals fr the Seventh Circuit has issued decisions adressing proper
venue in proceedings conducted by televideo, but those decisions determined the venue fr a
petition fr review in the cour of appeals uder section 242(b )(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
1252(b)(2), rather ta the autority to decide a motion to reopen at the administrative agency
level. See Cordova-Soto v. Holder, 732 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2013); Ramos v. Ashcrof, 371 F.3d
948 (7th Cir. 2004). Nor has the respondent established ay prejudice wit regad to her
apparent contention that the Immigration Judge's April 16, 2012, decision did not inform her of
her right to appea, inasmuch as she fled a tmely appea of that decision.
Z
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

\-
11

G
UITED STATES DEPATMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMMIGRATION COURT
2345 GRAD BLV., STE 525
KSAS CITY, MO 64108
CHADRA, SUBHSH
11414 W. CETER ROA, STE. 343
OMAHA, NE 68144
Date: Apr
1
File A094329-654
In the Matter of:
MONTEJO TRUJILLO, EDELMA M
Attached is a copy of the written decision of the Immigration Judge.
This decision is final unless an appeal is taken to the Board of
Immigration Appeals. The enclosed copies of FORM EOIR 26,
\
Notice of Appeal, and FOR EOIR 27, Notice of Entry as Attorney or
Representative, properly executed, must be filed with the Board of
Immigration Appeals on or before
The appeal must be accompanied by proof of paid fee ($110.00).
Enclosed is a copy of the oral ecision.
Enclosed is a transcript of the testimony of record.
You are granted until to submit brief
to this office in support of your appeal.
Oposing counsel is granted until to submit a
brief in opposition to the,. appeal.
-
Enclosed is a copy of thedecision of the Immigration Judge.
Order of lmmigra.tion Judge John H. O'Malley.
Motions filed to reopen proceedings, change venue
to 08R8, Nand substitute counsel.
All papers filed with the Court shall be accompanied by proof
cc:
of service upon op9sing bunsel.
`
JbNNlFbH

MAY
.
'

!
2345 GRD BLV, STE 500
KSAS CITY, MO 64108
11sincere1y
`\`

Immigratiort Clerk L
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
1
2
3
at8d btat888gattm8nt OJu8tc8
EXECUTIE OIIlC0IMlCRA10NHVEW
MMICRD0NCOURT
CICAGO ILINOIS
4

I THE MATTER OF:

6 ED ELMA MONTJO TRUlLLO
7 IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
8
9
!0
!
!2
ORDER OF THE IMMGRATON JUDGE
I3
FILE No.:
A094 329 654
PROPOSED ORER
14
Upon consideration of the MOTION FOR CHE OF VEUE, it is HRBY ORDERD
tat te motion be GRATED because:
!

oes.oppose the moti

!
_The respondent does not oppose te motion.
IT
A response to te motion ha not been fled with the cou.

M Good cause has been establis
h
ed fr te motion.
l8
_Te court agees with te reasons stated in te opposition to the motion.
I9
Te motion is utimely per
20
o
t
h
er:
Ml"
2)
Deadlines:
22
_ Te application(s) fr relief must be fled by
23
_Te respondent must comply wDHS biometics instctions by ___ _
24
2
g Date
2
2T
2
C
K

ation Judge
Cerifcate of Serice Tis docuent was sered by: [ ] Mail [ ] Persona Service
To: []Alien []Alien c/o Custodial Ofcer []Alien's p [] DHS Date:
/ 7, I Z By: Cour Staf

= P . G
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