Altagracia Filpo de Vasquez, A300 317 878 (BIA Nov. 15, 2011)

8/13/2019 Altagracia Filpo de Vasquez, A300 317 878 (BIA Nov. 15, 2011)

1/4

Rodriguez, Jennifer J., Esq.Wilens Baker, P C.450 Seventh Avenue, 12th FloorNew York, NY 10123-0000

U.S. Department o JusticeExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewBoard o mmigration AppealsOffice o he Clerk5107 Leesburg Pike Suite 2000Falls Church Virginia 22041

DHS/ICE Office of hief Counsel - NYC6 Federal Plaza, Room 1130New York, NY 10278

Name: FILPO DE VASQUEZ, ALTAGRACIA CARMEN A300-317 -878

Date ofthis notice: 11/15/2011Enclosed is a copy o the Board s decision and order in the above-referenced case.

Enclosure

Panel Members:Guendelsberger, John

Sincerely,

Donna CarrChief Clerk


2/4

U.S. Department of JusticeExecutive Office for Immigration Review

Decision ofthe Board of Immigration Appeals

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A300 317 878 New York, NY Date:In re: ALTA GRACIA DEL CARMEN FILPO DE VASQUEZ a.k.a.Altagracia Del Carmen Filpo FilpoIN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGSAPPEALON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Jennifer J Rodriguez, EsquireON BEHALF OF DHS: Francisco Prieto

Assistant Chief CounselCHARGE:

NOV 15 2DH

Notice: Sec. 212(a)(6)(A)(i), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)]-Present without being admitted or paroled

Sec. 212(a)(6)(C)(i), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i)]-Fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact

The Department ofHomeland Security ( DHS ) appeals the decision of he Immigration Judgedated April 28, 20 I 0, terminating these removal proceedings. The record will be remanded.

We review Immigration Judges' findings of fact for clear error, but questions oflaw, discretion,and judgment, and all other issues in appeals, de novo. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i), (ii).

We are not persuaded that the Immigration Judge's decision to decline to find that the respondentis removable as charged in the Notice to Appear should be disturbed. The respondent, a native andcitizen of the Dominican Republic, testified that she entered the United States at John F KennedyInternational Airport and was permitted to enter the United States after presenting travel documentsto an immigration officer. This testimony supports a finding that she is an alien who has beenadmitted to the United States, and, therefore, subject to removal on the grounds of removability setforth in section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1227, as opposed to thegrounds inadmissibility set forth in section 212 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182. See Matter oQuilanta n, 25 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 2010). The DHS's arguments on appeal do not persuade us thatthe Immigration Judge's decision to credit the respondent's testimony as credible is clearlyerroneous. See section 240(c)(4)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4)(C) (stating that, in theabsence of an explicit credibility determination, a witness shall have a rebuttable presumption ofcredibility on appeal). As such, we affirm the Immigration Judge's decision to not find therespondent removable as charged.


3/4

A300 317 878

Nonetheless, the respondent appears to be an alien who is present in the United States inviolation of the immigration laws ofthis country. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to remandthis matter to the Immigration Judge to provide the DHS the opportunity to lodge additionally factualallegations and charges of deportability under section 237 of the Act. ee 8 C.F.R. 1003.30,1240.1 0 e). fremovability is established, the Immigration Judge should determine if he respondentis eligible for any form of relief from removal. Accordingly, the following order is entered.

ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Court for further proceedings consistentwith the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision.

2


4/4

IMMIGRATION COURT26 FEDERAL PLZ 12TH F ~ . R M 1 2 3 7

NEW YORK NY 10278In the Matte r of

Case No.: A300-317-878FILPO DE VELASQUEZ, ALTAGRACIA DEL CARME

Respondent IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGSORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

This i s a summary of the o r a l dec i s ion en te red on ~ ; ; ~ ~his memorandum i s so l e l y fo r the convenience of t ~ a r d f e S ~ f theproceedings should be appealed o r reopened, the o r a l dec is ion wil l becomethe o f f i c i a l opinion in the case.\] The respondent was ordered removed from the United Sta tes to

o r in the a l t e r n a t i v e to .[ ] Respondent s app l i ca t ion fo r voluntary depar ture was denied andrespondent was ordered removed to o r in thea l t e r na t i ve to .[ ] Respondent s app l i ca t ion for voluntary depar ture was gr an ted u n t i l

upon pos t ing a bond in the amount ofwi th an a l t e r na t e order of removal to .Respondent s app l i ca t ion fo r :[1 Asylum was ( )g ran ted )denied( )withdrawn.[ Withholding of removal was ) granted ( ) denied l withdrawn.[ ] A Waiver under Sect ion was ( ) granted ( l denied ) withdrawn.[ ] Cance l la t ion of removal under sec t ion 240A(a) was ( )granted )denied( )withdrawn.Respondent s app l i ca t ion fo r :[ . ] Cance l la t ion under sec t ion 240A(b) (1) was ( ) gr an ted ) denied( ) withdrawn. I f granted, it i s ordered t ha t the respondent be i s sueda l l appropr ia te documents necessary to give e f f ec t to t h i s order .Cance l la t ion under sec t ion 240A(b) (2) was ( )granted ( )denied( )withdrawn. I f gr an ted it i s ordered tha t the respondent be i s sueda l l appropr ia ted documents necessary to give e f f ec t to t h i s order .

Adjustment of Sta tus under Sect ion was ( )granted ( )denied( )withdrawn. I f granted it i s ordered t ha t the respondent be i s sueda l l appropr ia ted documents necessary to give e f f e c t to t h i s order .Respondent s app l i ca t ion of ( l withholding of removal ( l d e f e r r a l ofremoval under Art ic le I I I of the Convention Against Tor ture was( ) granted ( ) denied ( l withdrawn.Respondent s s t a tu s was rescinded under sec t ion 246.Respondent i s admit ted to the United Sta tes as a _____ u n t i lAs a cond i t ion o f admiss ion, respondent i s to pos t a bond.Respondent knowingly f i l ed a f r ivo lous asylum app l i ca t ion a f t e r properno t i ce .Respondent was advised of the l im i t a t i o n on d i sc re t ionary r e l i e f fo rf a i l u r e to appear as ordered in the Immigration Judge s ora l dec is ion .~ ] Proceedings were t e rmina ted.[ ] Other:Date: Apr 28, 2010

mmigrat ion Judgep p e a l ~~ ~ Appeal Due By:~ d - ~ J ' l . - o t V

Documents

Altagracia Filpo de Vasquez, A300 317 878 (BIA Nov. 15, 2011)