Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - HLG 1717 Zoy Street Harlingen, TX 78552
A 205-383-123
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case. Sincerely,
Don.JtL ct1IVL)
Donna Carr Chief Clerk
Cite as: William Noe Perez-Cortez, A205 383 123 (BIA Sept. 25, 2013)
Date:
sn: 2 5 ZOi3
WILLIAM NOE PEREZ-CORTEZ
Pro se
ORDER: The respondent has filed an appeal of an Immigration Judge's decision, which denied his timely motion to reopen removal proceedings, conducted in absentia. The respondent had argued That that he failed to appear for his October 30, 2012, hearing due to exceptional circumstances. inclement weather caused by Hurricane Sandy. The Department of Homeland Security (the "DHS") has filed a '1Notice of Non-Opposition", in which it states that it is unopposed to the respondent's appeal. of the removal hearing. The DHS observes that the Immigration Judge considered that the respondent maintained an address in California at the time However, the DHS states, a search of DHS records indicates that the Thus, the DHS states, at respondent was reporting on an Order of Supervision to the DHS office in New York City, and the respondent may have earlier provided a New York address to the DHS. weather situation created by Hurricane Sandy. In light of the DHS' position in this matter, the record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for the respondent to have a hearing on the charges contained in the Notice to Appear. the time of the removal hearing the respondent was residing in New York and subject to the
is, the respondent argued, he was unable to travel from New York to Harlingen, Texas, due to
Cite as: William Noe Perez-Cortez, A205 383 123 (BIA Sept. 25, 2013)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRATION COURT 2009 W. JEFFERSON AVE, HARLINGEN, TX STE 300 78550
NY
FILE A 205-383-123
DATE:
Apr 11,
2013
UNABLE TO FORWARD
IS FINAL UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED WITH THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE MAILING OF THIS WRITTEN DECISION. SEE THE ENCLOSED FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPERLY PREPARING YOUR APPEAL. ATTACHED DOCUMENTS, OFFICE OF THE CLERK P.O. BOX 8530 FALLS CHURCH, VA 22041
AND FEE OR FEE WAIVER REQUEST
ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE AS THE RESULT OF YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT YOUR SCHEDULED DEPORTATION OR REMOVAL HEARING. THIS DECISION IS FINAL UNLESS A MOTION TO REOPEN IS FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 242B(c) (3) SECTION 1252B(c) (3) 8 U.S.C. SECTION TO REOPEN, OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, 8 U.S.C. IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS OR SECTION 240(c)
1229a(c)
(6)
(6),
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS.
YOUR MOTION MUST BE FILED WITH THIS COURT: IMMIGRATION COURT . 2009 W. JEFFERSON AVE, TX 78550 STE 300 HARLINGEN,
vo;HER:
IMMIGRATION COURT CC: ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL 1717 ZOY ST. HARLINGEN, TX, 785520000
FF
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW HARLINGEN IMMIGRATION COURT 2009 WEST JEFFERSON AVENUE, SUITE 300 HARLINGEN, TEXAS 7 INTIIE MATIER OF William Noe Perez-Cortez RESPONDENT APPLICATIONS: Motion to Reopen ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT Assistant Chief Counsel 1717 Zoy St. Harlingen, TX 78552 ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE On October 30, 2012, the Court ordered the respondent removed to El Salvador in
absentia pursuant to section 240(b)(5)(A) of the Act. The respondent submitted a letter to the
) ) ) ) )
April
2013
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
Court requesting reopening of his removal proceedings due to exceptional circumstances. The respondent's motion will be denied. In his motion to reopen, respondent does not argue lack of notice. Rather, the respondent argues that his failure to appear should be excused because of the exceptional circumstance of Hurricane Sandy interrupting his travel from New York. 1 However, the respondent has not submitted any evidence of his intent to travel or of his travel disruptions. Thus, the Court finds that the respondent has not shown that exceptional circumstances prevented his attendance at his October 30, 2012, removal hearing. The Court also concludes that the circumstances of this case do not warrant of the Court's limited sua sponte authority. See Matter
an
exercise
of J-J-, 21 l&N
Accordingly, the following order shall be entered: ORDER: The respondent's motion to reopen is DENIED.
It should be noted that the respondent continues to maintain a Los Angeles, CA mailing address with the Court.