Alvarez De Bennett, Paola M., Esq.

Alvarez de Bennett Law, P .C.

300 Norh Walker Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Name: LURENCE, ADAM
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Imigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Ofce of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church. Vrginia 20530
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel - OKC
4400 SW 44th Street, Suite A
Oklahoma City, OK 73119-2800
A 200-867-388
Date of this notice: 2/7/2014
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Manuel, Elise
Guendelsberger, John
Hofman, Sharon
Sincerely,
Da CaA
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
yungc
Userteam: Docket
.
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Adam Laurence, A200 867 388 (BIA Feb. 7, 2014)
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Imigration Review
Falls Church, Virginia 20530
File: A00 867 388 - Dallas, TX
I re: ADAM LAURNCE
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
APPEAL
Decision of the Board of Imigration Appeals
Date:
FEB - 7
2014
ON BEHALF OF RSPONDENT: Paola M. Alvaez de Bennett, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS:
APPLICATION: Reopening
Magaret M. Price
Assistant Chief Counsel
The respondent, a native and citizen of Canada, appeals the decision of te Immigration
Judge, mailed April 27, 2012, denying the paies' Joint and Unopposed Motion. The
Depaent of Homeland Security ("DHS") is opposed to te respondent's appeal.
The Immigation Judge ered in denying the respondent's motion to reopen. Here, both
parties agreed that reopened proceedings were waranted in order to allow the respondent to
pursue an application fr adjustent of status on te basis of a pending immigrant visa petition
fled by his United States citizen spouse. See Mater of Velarde, 23 l&N Dec. 253 (BIA 2002).
The paties have an importnt role to play in these administrative proceedings, and that their
agreement on an issue or proper course of action should, in most instances, be determinative.
Mater of Yewondosen, 21 I&N Dec. 1025 (BIA 1997). The Immigration Judge's concers
regarding te timing of the respondent's mariage is not, in itself, suffcient to overcome the
DHS's express agreement to reopening. Moreover, where the alien has not stictly complied
with the regulatory requirements of fling an application fr relief in support of a motion to
reopen, but the DHS has affratively joined the motion, an Immigration Judge may reopen in
te interests of faess and administative economy. Id. Accordingly, the fllowing order is
entered.
ORER: The respondent's appeal is sustained, the Immigation Judge's decision is vacated,
the paies' Joint and Unopposed Motion is ganted, these removal proceedings are reopened,
ad the record is remanded to the Immigration Court fr frther proceedings consistent with the
fregoing opinion and the enty of a new decision.
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Adam Laurence, A200 867 388 (BIA Feb. 7, 2014)

.


.
: /.:
I.
.
__
_
..
UITED STATES DEPATMENT OF. JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMIGRATION REVIEW
AVAREZ-BENETT, PAOLA M.
300 NORTH WALKR AVENUE
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
IMMIGRTION COT
1100 COMMERCE ST., ROOM 404
DALLAS, TX 75242


IN THE MTTER OF
LUENCE, AA
FILE A 200-867-388 DATE: Apr 27, 2012
UALE TO FORWARD - NO ADRESS PROVIDED
ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE. THIS DECISION
IS FINAL ULESS A APPEAL IS FILED WITH THE BOAD OF IMIGRTION APPEALS .
WITHIN 30 CALENDA DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE MILING OF THIS WRITTEN DECISION.
SEE THE ENCLOSED FORMS A INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPERLY PREPAING YOUR APPEAL.
YOU NOTICE OF APPEAL, ATTACHED DOCUMENTS, AD FEE O FEE WAIVER REQUEST
MUST BE MILED TO: BOARD OF IMIGRATION APPEALS
OFFICE OF HE CLERK
P.O. BOX 8530
FALLS CHURCH, VA. 22041
ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUGE AS THE RESULT
OF YOU FAILUE TO APPEA AT YOUR SCHEDULED DEPORTATION OR REMOVA HEARING.
THIS DECISION IS FINAL UESS A MOTION TO REOPEN IS FILED IN ACCORACE
WITH SECTION 242B(c) (3) OF THE IMMIGRATION AD NATIONALITY ACT, 8 U.S.C.
SECTION 1252B(c} (3) IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS OR SECTION 240(c) (6),
8 U.S.C. SECTION 1229a(c) (6) IN REMOVA PROCEEDINGS. IF YOU FILE A MOTION
TO REOPEN, YOUR MOTION MUST BE FILED WITH THIS COUT:
X OTHER: JGE'S DECISION
CC: PEGGY PRICE
125 E. HY 114, STE
IRVING, TX, 75062
IMMIGRTION COURT
1100 COMERCE ST., ROOM 404
DALLS, TX 75242
- JOIN MOTION TO REOPE (DENIE)
Cf
COURT CLERK
IMIGRTION COURT
500
<

FF
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
In Re: Adam Laurence
United States Department of Justice
Executive Ofce of Immigration Review
United States Immigration Court
Oklaoma City, Oklahoma
Case No. 200-867-388
ORDER
Tis matter is befre the Court pursuant to the Respondent's Mach 26, 2012
Motion to Re-Open. For the reasons set frt below, the motion will be DENIED.
Te Respondent appeared befre the court with counsel on November 28, 2011
and requested pre-conclusion voluntary departure. The goverent had no objection. The
Cou ten granted Respondent 120 days pre-conclusion voluntar departure. The
voluntary departure expired on March 27, 2012. One day prior to the expiration of the
voluntary departue period, the parties fled a "Joint Motion to Re-Open."
The basis of the motion says that the paties have agreed to re-open to allow the
Respondent to pusue adjustment of status. However, there ae several problems with that
agreement. First, Respondent was apparently married Mach 19, 2012 -well afer
Respondent was placd into proceedings and only 8 days befre he was required to depar
the United States. Since the mariage was entered into afer being placed into
proceedings, it is deemed suspect. A mere to days afer the wedding, the new wife fled
an 1-130.
Second, the 1-130 has not been adjudicated. So there is no relief available to the
alien and he is not able to adjust his status.
Tird, Respondent filed to comply with 8 C.F .R. 1 003 .23(b )(3) in that the
motion is not accompanied by a application fr relief.
Therefre the Cou will decline to grant the motion.
Futher, as a result of the Respondent having fled the Motion to Re-Open within
the tie provided fr voluntary departure, the alterate Order of Removal to Canada is
immediately efective.
This 24t
h
day of Apri
hael P Baird
United States Immigation Judge
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t