U.S.

Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board ofImmigration Appeals
Office ofthe Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike. Suite 2000
Falls Ch11rch. Virginia 20530

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - SNA

8940 Fourwinds Drive, 5th Floor
San Antonio, TX 78239

Name: URIBE-RAMIREZ, BENIGNO

A 205-163-479

Date of this notice: 6/8/2015

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

DewtL c

t1/lA.)

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Holmes, David B.

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/

Cite as: Benigno Uribe-Ramirez, A205 163 479 (BIA June 8, 2015)
,61.Y.':'",v,v:-,)M,,

<i..,.. Vv,<"<'>'. _.,,,.,,,,,,,_;;:;:g}\&Cf#.J.S,J.C.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Peek, Jeffrey Alan

Peek & Toland
1214 East 7th Street
Austin, TX 78702

U.S. Department of Justice

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 20530

File: A205 163 479- San Antonio, TX

Date:

In re: BENIGNO URIBE-RAMIREZ

JUN -8 2015

APPEAL AND MOTION

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Jeffrey A. Peek, Esquire
APPLICATION: Continuance; remand
ORDER:
The respondent appeals the Immigration Judge's January 28, 2014, decision denying his
request for a continuance, and ordering him removed to his native Mexico. On appeal, the
respondent has submitted what is in essence a motion to remand. The Department of Homeland
Security has not opposed the appeal, or objected to the motion. The motion is granted.
We review for clear error the findings of fact, including the determination of credibility,
made by the Immigration Judge. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i). All other issues are reviewed de
novo, including whether the parties have met the relevant burden of proof, and issues of
discretion. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(ii).
On appeal, the respondent argues that he presented good cause for a continuance to pursue a
nonimmigrant "U" visa for victims of violent crimes (U visa). The Immigration Judge denied a
continuance because the respondent had not pursued a U visa with the United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services ("USCIS") during an extended continuance, despite having an
approved law enforcement certification ("LEC"), which had since expired. The respondent
sought a continuance to renew the LEC, and pursue a U visa.
With his appeal the respondent has submitted evidence showing that, subsequent to the
Immigration Judge's decision, he filed a nonimmigrant U visa petition with USCIS, which
included the required approved LEC, as well as an application for a waiver of inadmissibility.
He essentially seeks to remand this matter to the Immigration Court to await processing of the
petition by the USCIS. See Matter of Sanchez-Sosa, 25 l&N Dec. 807 (BIA 2012). In light of
this new evidence, we find it appropriate to remand these proceedings to allow the respondent
the opportunity to request a continuance while he pursues non-immigrant U visa status with
USCIS. Id. (stating that an alien who has filed a prima facie approvable petition for a U visa
with USCIS will ordinarily warrant a favorable exercise of discretion for a continuance for a
reasonable period of time). Accordingly, the motion to remand is granted.
FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further
proceedings consistent with the foregoin pinion and entry of a new decision.
r

\
tJvvVL,__.
FOR THE BOARD

Cite as: Benigno Uribe-Ramirez, A205 163 479 (BIA June 8, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

File: A205-163-479

January 28, 2014

In the Matter of

BENIGNO URIBE-RAMIREZ
. RESPONDENT

)
)
)
)

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

CHARGES:

Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act: Alien

present in the United States without admission or parole.

APPLICATIONS:

None.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: CARLOS MONTOYA

ON BEHALF OF OHS: ELLIOT SELLE

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

The respondent is a male, native and citizen of Mexico, who arrived in the
United States at or near Nogales, Arizona, on an unknown date. The respondent was
not admitted or paroled following inspection at the time of his arrival. The Department
of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear dated February 1, 2012, which charges
that the respondent is removable pursuant to Section 212(a){6){A)(i) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act. See Exhibit 1.
At a hearing before the undersigned, the respondent, through counsel,

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

admitted the allegations in the Notice to Appear and conceded the charge of
inadmissibility. Based on those pleadings, I find that inadmissibility has been

At a hearing on December 18, 2012, the respondent advised that he

would seek a U Visa and that he was in the process of seeking certification to pursue
that application for relief before the Department of Homeland Security. He advised at
that time that if he was unsuccessful in obtaining a U Visa, his only relief before the
Court would be voluntary departure. Accordingly, the Court reset the matter for the
respondent to pursue his application for a U Visa.
At the resumed hearing on January 28, 2014, the respondent advised,
through counsel, that he was successful in obtaining his certification but that he decided
not to go forward, because the alleged assailant was a relative of his wife. The
respondent's counsel advised that the respondent had not maintained communication
with him and that he was therefore unable to proceed on the application for a U Visa.
Counsel for the respondent requested an additional continuance because the request
for certification had expired and he wanted to try to obtain that certification again to
begin the U Visa process anew.
The Government has opposed the request for a continuance, and I do not
find that the respondent has established good cause for the requested continuance
where the respondent declined to pursue the U Visa application, even though he was
given more than a year to go forward in that process.
The respondent has advised that he is not seeking any other form of relief
from removal before the Court, and inadmissibility having been established, I do not see
that I have any alternative but to enter an order of removal to Mexico, the country of the
respondent's citizenship and nativity.
A205-163-479

January 28, 2014

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

established by evidence that is clear and convincing.

Accordingly, the following order is hereby entered.

ORDER

to Mexico on the charge contained in the Notice to Appear.

Please see the next page for electronic

signature

A205-163-479

GLENN P. MCPHAUL
Immigration Judge

January 28, 2014

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

IT IS ORDERED that the respondent be removed from the United States

..
,

'

'

/Isl/
Immigration Judge GLENN P. MCPHAUL

A205-163-479

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

rncphaulg on April 10, 2014 at 12:57 PM GMT

January 28, 2014