Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Zoltan, Paul S., Esq. Law Offices of Paul S. Zoltan P.O. Box 821118 Dallas, TX 75382
OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - DAL 125 E. John Carpenter Fwy, Ste. 500 Irving, TX 75062-2324
A 097-744-763
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case. Sincerely,
DOrt!U- CtVvV
Donna Carr Chief Clerk
Cite as: Gustavo Alexis Murillo-Borjas, A097 744 763 (BIA July 30, 2013)
Dallas, TX
Date:
JUL 3 0 2013
In re: GUSTAVO ALEXIS MURILLO-BORJAS IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF DHS: Paul S. Zoltan, Esquire
The Department of Homeland Security (OHS) and the respondent have jointly filed an interlocutory appeal from the Immigration Judge's February 5, 2013, order that granted the parties' motion to reopen these proceedings, but denied the parties' motion to administratively close the reopened proceedings. To avoid piecemeal review of the myriad of questions which may arise in the course of proceedings before us, this Board does not ordinarily entertain interlocutory appeals. See Matter of Ruiz-Campuzano, 17 I&N Dec. 108 (BIA 1979). We have, however, on occasion ruled on the merits of interlocutory appeals where we deemed it necessary 2 to correct recurring problems in the handling of cases by Immigration Judges. See e.g., Matter of Guevara, 20 l&N Dec. 238 (BIA 1990, 1991); Matter of Dobere, 20 I&N Dec. 188 (BIA 1990). We will entertain this appeal and vacate the Immigration Judge's order insofar as that order denied the parties' joint motion to administratively close the proceedings. While an Immigration Judge has the ultimate authority to deny a joint motion filed by the parties, the Immigration Judge's order does not reflect that he accorded any weight or consideration to the factual circumstances presented in the parties' motion or to the agreement of the parties as to the appropriate course of action in Dec these 688 proceedings. (BIA 2012), Further, other than a citation to Judge's
Matter ofAvetisyan,
25 I&N
regarding an Immigration
responsibility for exercising independent judgment and responsibility in considering a motion to administratively close proceedings and a conclusory statement that the parties' motion "failed to provide a legal basis for administratively closing proceedings," the Immigration Judge's order sets forth no basis or rationale that would warrant the denial of the joint motion. Given the circumstances presented, the joint motion to administratively close these proceedings will be granted.
The Immigration Judge granted the motion to reopen the proceedings based on a lack of in absentia order of removal.
The OHS has submitted a motion for concurrent consideration of 13 other unrelated cases presenting a similar issue that we do not find necessary to address in the context of this
interlocutory appeal.
Cite as: Gustavo Alexis Murillo-Borjas, A097 744 763 (BIA July 30, 2013)
ORDER: The appeal is sustained and the proceedings are administratively closed. If either party to this case wishes to reinstate the proceedings, a written request to reinstate the proceedings may be made to the Board. The Board will take no further action in the case unless a request is received from one of the parties. The request must be submitted directly to the Clerk's Office, without fee, but with certification of service on the opposing party. FURTHER ORDER: Given the Immigration Judge's February 5, 2013, order, the June 7,
Cite as: Gustavo Alexis Murillo-Borjas, A097 744 763 (BIA July 30, 2013)