U.S.

Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals

Office of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 20530

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - LVG

Law Office of Robert West

P.O. Box 50390
Henderson, NV 89016

3373 Pepper Lane

Las Vegas, NV 89120

Name: FABIAN-MEDRANO, FRANCISCO

A 205-150-585

Date of this notice: 11/24/2014

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

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk

Enclosure
Panel Members:
Adkins-Blanch, Charles K.
Guendelsberger, John
Hoffman, Sharon

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Francisco Fabian-Medrano, A205 150 585 (BIA Nov. 24, 2014)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Robert West, Esq.

. U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Falls Church, Virginia 20530

Date:

File:

A205 150 585 - Las Vegas, NV

In re:

FRANCISCO FABIAN-MEDRANO a.k.a. Manuel Sigala

NOV 24 2014

APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:
ON BEHALF OF DHS:

Robert West, Esqurre

An Mai Nguyen

Assistant Chief Counsel

APPLICATION:

Voluntary departure under section 240B of the Act

The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals the decision of the Immigration
Judge, dated December 10, 2012, denying his request for voluntary departure and ordering his
removal from the United States.

The Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") has filed a

motion for summary affirmance. The record will be remanded for remanded for further
proceedings.
The Board reviews findings of fact made by the Immigration Judge under a clearly erroneous
standard. 8 C.F.R.

1003.l(d)(3)(i). We review questions of law and issues of discretion under a

1003.l(d)(3)(ii).

de novo standard. 8 C.F.R.

The respondent sought voluntary departure pursuant to section 240B of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.

1229c. The Immigration Judge concluded that the respondent had

not met his burden of proving that he was not precluded from seeking voluntary departure based
upon documents that showed the respondent had been charged with possession of marijuana and
possession of drug paraphernalia. Since the respondent was unable to show that he had been
convicted of possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana, the Immigration Judge concluded
that the respondent was unable to show the requisite good moral character for voluntary
departure (I.J. at 3-4).
125 (BIA 2009).

See section 101(f)(3) of the Act; Matter of Espinoza, 25 l&N Dec. 118,

On appeal, the respondent has submitted evidence that he was ultimately

convicted of a single charge, namely possession of 1 ounce or less of marijuana.

Pursuant to section 101(f)(3) of the Act, the respondent would not be precluded from
showing eligibility for voluntary departure if he was convicted of "a single offense of simple
possession of thirty grams or less of marihuana." In this case, the respondent was convicted of
possession of 1 ounce or less of marijuana. We take administrative notice that an ounce consists
of 28.3495 grams. Since the respondent was convicted of possession of 28.3495 grams or less of
marijuana, he does not appear to be precluded from seeking voluntary departure on the basis
cited by the Immigration Judge.

Cite as: Francisco Fabian-Medrano, A205 150 585 (BIA Nov. 24, 2014)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

A205 150 585

. Accordingly, we will remand this case for further proceedings so that the Immigration Judge
may further consider the respondent's application for voluntary departure. The following order is
entered.
ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Court for further proceedings and the
entry of a new decision.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Cite as: Francisco Fabian-Medrano, A205 150 585 (BIA Nov. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT

File:

NEVADA

December 10,

A205-150-585

2012

In the Matter of

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

FRANCISCO FABIAN-MEDRANO
RESPONDENT

Section 212(a) (6) (A) (i)

CHARGE:

Nationality Act
States

APPLICATION:

of the Irmnigration and

(the Act)

- present in the United

without having been admitted or paroled.

Post-conclusion voluntary departure.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:

ROBERT WEST
P.O. Box 50390
Henderson,

ON BEHALF OF

OHS:

Nevada 89016

AN MAI NGUYEN
Assistant Chief Counsel

ORAL DECISION AND ORDERS OF THE IMMIGRATION

JUDGE

The respondent is a 33-year-old male who is a native and

citizen of Mexico.
Homeland Security
the respondent.
Las Vegas,

On January 9,
(DHS)

2012,

the Department of

issued a Notice to Appear

(NTA)

against

The NTA was filed with the Immigration Court in

also on January 9,

2012.

See Exhibit 1.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

LAS VEGAS,

At a hearing on May 14,

2012,

the proceedings were

continued until today's date to give the respondent an

the NTA and the charge of inadmissibility set forth above.

Court also advised at the hearing on May 14,

2012,

The

that if the

respondent intended to apply for any form of relief other than

voluntary departure,

the application for such relief,

asylum and cancellation of removal,

on today's date.

to include

must be filed with the Court

See 8 C.F.R. 1003.31 (c) .

At today's hearing,

the respondent,

through

counsel,

admitted the four factual allegations in the NTA and he conceded

the charge of inadmissibility set forth above.
240 (c) (2)

of the Act.

See Section

The respondent designated Mexico as the

country for removal.

The only relief requested by the respondent is post
conclusion voluntary departure.

However,

the Court concludes

that the respondent has not met his burden of proving that he
qualifies for post-conclusion voluntary departure.
101 (f) (3)

and 212 (a) (2) (A) (i) (II) .

The record reflects that on January 25,

Justice Court for Las Vegas Township,
with two separate counts:
second,

first,

presented evidence,

in the

possession of marijuana and,

The respondent

to indicate the disposition of these

In his testimony in Court today,

A205-150-585

2012,

the respondent was charged

possession of drug paraphernalia.

charges.

See Sections

he did indicate that

December 10,

2012

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

opportunity to prepare a plea to the four factual allegations in

he had pled guilty and had attended classes and that the case
was closed based upon this disposition.

However,

good moral

character grounds if he can establish that his conviction

related to 30 grams or less of marijuana.
of the Act.

In this case,

of the Criminal
charges,

See Section lOl(f) (3)

the Court does not have the judgment

Court that reflects the disposition of the

but there was one count for possession of marijuanaL

and a second count for possession of drug paraphernalia.

In Matter of Espinoza,
Board stated:

25 I&N

Dec 118,

125 (BIA 2009},

the

"we conclude that an alien who is inadmissible

under Section 212(a) (2) (A) (i) (II)

Section 212(h)

of the Act may apply for a

waiver if he demonstrates by a preponderance of

the evidence that the conduct that made him inadmissible was
either a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less
of marijuana or an act that related to such an offense."
Although the Espinoza case arose in the context of a
Section 212(h)

waiver,

the statutory language at issue appears

to be the same in the instant caseL because the respondent was

charged with more than one count of possession of marijuanaL and
the disposition of the charges is unclear to the Court.

The

Court will conclude that the respondent has not met his burden
of proving that

his conviction related to a single offense of

possession of marijuana in an amount that consisted of 30 grams

or less.

For this reason,

A205-150-585

the respondent's application for

December 10,

2012

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

clear that the respondent could only qualify on

the law is

post-conclusion voluntary departure will be denied.

Based on the foregoing,

the Court will enter the following

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondent's application for
post-conclusion voluntary departure be denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent shall be removed
from the United States to Mexico pursuant to the charge
contained in the NTA.

Please see the next page or electronic signature

JE F FREY L.

ROMIG

Immigration Judge

A205-150-585

December 10,

2012

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

orders:

I,

I Isl/

,
.,

:)

Immigration Judge JEFFREY L.

A205-150-585

2013 at 6:32 PM GMT

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

romigje on February 21,

ROMIG

December 10,

2012