Allison McCarhy

Cole & Vondra, LLP

209 E. Washington St., Ste 305
Iowa City, IA 52240
Name: MARTINEZ-REYES, MAURO
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Ofce of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Fals Church. Virginia 20530
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel - OMA
1717 Avenue H
Omaha, NE 68110
A 205-002-826
Date of this notice: 9/25/2014
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order i the above-refrenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Pauley, Roger
Cole, Patricia A.
Wendtland, Linda S.
Sincerely,
|o t
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
sci1'\iarzt1
Usertea m: Docket
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
Cite as: Mauro Martinez-Reyes, A205 002 826 (BIA Sept. 25, 2014)
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
, U.S. Deparment of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Imigation Review
Decision of te Board of Imigration Appeals
Falls Church, Virginia 20530
File: A205 002 826 - Omaa, NE
In re: MURO MRTINEZ-RYES
IN RMOVAL PROCEEDIGS
APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Allison McCahy, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS:
CHARGE:
Kristin Linsley
Assistat Chief Counsel
Date:
Notice: Sec. 212(a)(6)(A)(i), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. l 182(a)(6)(A)(i)] -
Present without being admitted or paoled
APPLICATION: Motion to suppress; termination
SEP
2 5 2014
The respondent appeas te Imigration Judge's decision dated April 12, 2013. The
Immigration Judge denied the respondent's Mach 8, 2012, motion to suppress. See Exhs. 3, 4.
Te Immigration Judge also sustaned the removability charge in the Notice to Appea (Exh. 1)
ad grated the respondent's voluntay depaure request pursuat to section 240B(b) of the
Immigration ad Nationaity Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229c(b). The respondent's request fr oral
agument will be denied. See 8 C. F.R. 1003. l(e)(7) (2014). The record will be remaded.
The respondent claims that on October 13, 2011, te car he was driving was stopped by a
police ofcer fom te Cedar Rapids Police Department (CRPD) fr alegedly having defctive
tal laps. See Respondent's Br. at 2. The respondent states that te police offcer asked him fr
his driver's license, proof of insuace, ad proof of citizenship. See id. Afer the police offcer
received te respondent's "identifcation," the offcer allegedly "indicated that he believed
Respondent wa a illegal imigrat ad then ordered Respondent to get out of the vehicle."
See id. According to the respondent, afer conducting a search of the respondent ad his
vehicle-ad questioning the vehicle's passengers as to te respondent's immigration status
the ofcer told the respondent that "he wa being arested fr severa trafcrelated
misdemeaor chages." See id; see also Iowa District Cou documents regading charges fr
(1) improper rea laps, (2) no driver's license, and (3) no insurace (Case Numbers 888093,
888091, 888092, respectively). While attending a heaing on October 14 at te Lin County
Distict Cour fr his taffc ofenses, te respondent purortedly leaed fr the fst time tat he
had a outstading war ant fr "faudulent practices" in the third degree. See Respondent's Br.
at 3. Dung his detention at te Linn County Jal, te respondent was interogated by
Agent Autio fom te Depament of Homelad Security (DHS) ad allegedly admited that
he was a citizen ad national of Mexico who entered te coutry ulawlly. See Ex. 2
(Form I-213). Tereafer, he was trasfered fom te custody of the CRPD to the custody of the
Cite as: Mauro Martinez-Reyes, A205 002 826 (BIA Sept. 25, 2014)
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
A205 002 826
Immigation ad Customs Enforcement. See Respondent's Br. at 3. On October 17, 2011,
a Notice to Appear was issued by the DHS alleging the above charge (Exh. 1 ).
On appeal, the respondent agues that the Immigration Judge ered by denying the motion to
suppress ad fr admitting the 1-213 into evidence witout frst ganting his request fr an
evidentiary hearing (Respondent's Br. at 4-5, 12-13). The respondent maintns that his stop and
arest were egregious violations of his Fouh Amendment rights as they were racially motivated
ad lacking in reasonable suspicion (Respondent's Br. at 3, 14-15). He also states that hs Fifh
Amendment rights were violated as his statements to DHS Agent Autio were not voluntaily
given, but rater stemmed fom the agent's coercive interogation (Respondent's Br. at 15-16).
In IS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1050-51 (1984), the Supreme Cou held that the
Fouh Amendment exclusionary rule is generally inapplicable to deportation proceedings, but
lef open the possibility of applying this rle if there are egregious Fourth Amendment violations
which transgress Fifh Amendment notions of fndamental firess and undermine the probative
value of the evidence. See also Lopez-Gabriel v. Holder, 653 F.3d 683, 686 (8th Cir. 2011)
(expressing doubt a to whether the exclusionar rule should apply in immigation proceedings
on the basis of conduct by state or loca police offcers, even in the case of egegious violations,
but ultimately ruling that te record did not support petitioner's belief that trf c stop ad arrest
were racially motivated); Puc-Ruiz v. Holder, 629 F.3d 771, 778 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting that
"egegious" violations ae not limited to cases involving physical brutality).
This Boad has recogized that although the exclusionar rule is generally inapplicable in
removal proceedings, suppression is appropriate where te evidence was obtained in a maner so
egregious that its use would violate due process by ofending the requirements of fndamental
fairess. See, e.g., Matter of Toro, 17 l&N Dec. 340, 343 (BIA 1980); Matter of Garcia, 17 l&N
Dec. 319, 321 (BIA 1980). A alien seeking the exclusion of evidence based on the Fourth
Amendment bears the burden of establishing a prima fie case that the evidence should be
suppressed. See Matter of Tang, 13 I&N Dec. 691, 692 (BIA 1971). Only when a alien has
come frwad with adequate evidence in support of suppression will the burden shif to the DHS
to justif the manner in which it obtained te evidence. See id.; see also Mater of Barcenas,
19 l&N Dec. 609, 611-12 (BIA 1988). This Board has also held that an 1-213 is inherently
tustworthy and admissible to prove alienage absent ay indication that it contains inforation
that is incorect or was obtained by coercion or duress. See Matter of Gomez-Gomez, 23 I&N
Dec. 522, 524 (BIA 2002); Matter of Ponce-Hernandez, 22 l&N Dec. 784, 785 (BIA 1999).
In this cae, te Imigation Judge recited te relevat famework fr analyzing a motion to
suppress in the removal context but did not make sufcient fctual and credibility fndings fr
puroses of our appellate review. In paricular, the Immigation Judge appeaed to fd that
nothing about the respondent's interaction with the immigration agent (i.e., "who determined that
he was a removable alien") or the arresting offcer suggests egregious conduct that would
warat the suppression of te 1-213, but te Immigration Judge did not make clear ad specifc
fndings as to te circumstances indicated in the current record with regard to the police ofcer's
stop, arest, and detention, or with respect to the custodial interogaton by the DRS agent
(I. J. at 3-4). Also, the Immigation Judge did not address the affdavit fled by the respondent's
2
Cite as: Mauro Martinez-Reyes, A205 002 826 (BIA Sept. 25, 2014)
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
A205 002 826
niece, who puoredly was a witess to his stop ad a est (Respondent's Br. at 13-14; Exh. 4 at
79-80).
In addition, te Immigation Judge did not adequately assess the respondent's claim that te
statements contained in the 1-213 ae interally inconsistent, inaccurate, ad not reliable. See
Exh. 3 at 14. Despite the Immigration Judge's fnding that the respondent provided insufcient
evidence to question the reliability of te 1-213 (l.J. at 4), his decision does not sufciently
addess the respondent's claim that the faudulent practices warat was not the tue reason fr
his arest since he was not notifed about this warrat until the day aer his a est (Respondent's
Br. at 14-15). See also Exh. 4 at 2 (respondent's afdavit contending that contray to the I-213's
statement that he was arrested by the CRPD fr an outstanding warant fr faudulent practices
in the third degree, he was told by the police ofcer that the basis fr his arest wa "fr tafc
tickets, ad specifcaly that [his] lights were not working"). In tis regad, we are not persuaded
at this time by the DHS's contention that the "respondent was stopped ... fr a taf c violation
regarding a broken tail light, no license, and no insurace, in addition to a outstanding criminal
waat fr Fraudulent Practices," a the record is unclear as to the circustaces of te
respondent's stop and his discovery of the criminal warat (DHS's Br. at 9-10).
The respondent also disputes the I-213's description of his imigration history involving two
aests by te Border Patrol on September 3 and 4, 2011, on te basis that he was shown records
while detained indicating that the arests actually occured in 2003. See Exh. 4 at 2. We fnd
unavailing the DHS's argument that it already had infration about the respondent's alienage
as he was twice voluntarily reted to Mexico, given that the I-213 does not specif to where he
wa reted ad, moreover, te DHS has not responded to his claim that te I-213 misstates the
date of hs prior rets (DHS's Br. at 10).' I light of the fregoing, we conclude that fher
proceedings are necessary a we are unable to adequately review the Immigration Judge's
conclusions. See Matter of S-H-, 23 I&N Dec. 462, 465 (BIA 2002) (given te Boad's limited
fact-fnding ability, it is "increaingly importt fr the Immigration Judge to mae clear ad
complete fndings of fct that ae suppored by the record ad in compliace wit contolling
law.").
In sum, we will remad this case to the Imigration Judge to make the necessary fctual
fndings in the frst instace. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(iv). In paricula, tere remain open
questions a to the circustances surrounding the respondent's arrest by the CRPD, the nature of
his interogation by DHS Agent Autio, ad the reliability of the I-213. The Immigration Judge
should reassess te infrmation contained in the I-213 to determine if it ca support the fnding
of alienage and then deterine whether that infration can and should be suppressed.
See Matter of Barcenas, supra, at 611-12. Accordingly, the record will be remaded.
1 We also note that the I-213-which was composed 4 days afer the respondent's October 13,
2011, aest-states that the "subject claims to be a citizen of Mexico by virue of bir," but
concludes by stating that he "claims to not fa persecution or torture if reted to Honduras"
and tat he "declined the opportunity to speak to the Honduras Consulate." See Exh. 2 at 2-3.
3
Cite as: Mauro Martinez-Reyes, A205 002 826 (BIA Sept. 25, 2014)
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
A205 002 826
ORER: The record is remaded to the Immigration Judge fr fher proceedings
consistent wth the fregoing opinion and fr te ent of a new decision.
Board Member Roger A. Pauley respectfully dissents and would affir the
Imigration Judge's decision finding no egregious, if indeed any, Fourth
Aendment violation. See Lopez-Ferandez v. Holder, 735 F.3d 1043, 1046 n.2
(8th Cir. 2014). Nor does the respondent provide any support for his contention
that his admission to being an alien from Mexico was coerced, apart rom his
baseless claim that his statements were the product of an egregious unlawful
search and seizure. See R's brief at 15-16. Remand here is a waste of
resources at a time when Inigration Judge's dockets are burgeoning.
4
Cite as: Mauro Martinez-Reyes, A205 002 826 (BIA Sept. 25, 2014)
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
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMGRATION COURT
OMAHA, NEBRASKA
File #: A205-002-826
In the Matter of:
Mauro MARTINEZ-REYES,
Resppndent.
)
)
)
)
)
Date: April 12, 2013
IN REMOVAL
PROCEEDIGS
CHARGE: Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i)of te Immigration and Nationality Act ("IA")
Alien present in the United States without being admitted or paoled.
APPLICATION: Objections to I-213 and Motion to Suppress
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:
Allison McCarthy, Esq.
Cole & Vondra, LLP
209 E. Washington Street, Suite 305
Iowa City, IA 52240
ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERMENT:
Kristin Linsley, Assistant Chief Counsel
U.S. Depament of Homelad Secuity
Immigation ad Customs Enfrcement
fr Omaha, Nebraska
DECISION OF THE IMMIGRTION JUDGE
I. Background and Procedural Histor
On October 17, 2011, the Department of Homelad Security ("DHS" or "the
goverent") initiated removal proceedings against Respondent by fling a Notice to Appear
("NT A") with the Immigration Court and personally serving Respondent. See Exh. 1. The NT A
alleges that Respondent is a native and citizen of Mexico who arrived in the United States at or
near a uknown location on an uown date without being admited or paroled afer
inspection. Id. The NT A charges Respondent with removability pursuant to the above
captioned section of the INA. Id
On March 8, 2012, Respondent, through counsel, fled a Motion to Suppress ad
Objections to 1-213 ("Motion to Suppress") requesting that all of the statements and evidence
contained in the Form 1-213, Record of Deportable/nadmissible Alien ("I-213"), the initial and
subsequent interviews wit Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), and al attachents
to the 1-213 be suppressed. See Motion to Suppress, at 1. The goverent opposes
Respondent's motion.
1
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
II. Statement of Law
Removal proceedings ae civil in nature; therefre, the protections that apply in the
criminal context do not necessaly apply in a removal hearing. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468
U.S. 1032, 1038 (1984); Matter of Barcenas, 19 I&N Dec. 609, 611 (BIA 1988). The
Immigration Court is not bound by the traditional rules of evidence. See Nyama v. Ashcrof, 357
F.3d 812, 816 (8th Cir. 2004); Barcenas, 19 l&N Dec. at 611. Documentay evidence is
admissible if it is relevant and probative ad its use is fndamentally fair so as not to deprive the
respondent of due process of the law. See Nyama, 357 F.3d at 816; Matter of Toro, 17 I&N Dec.
340, 343 (BIA 1980).
A respondent challenging the legality of evidence in removal proceedings must establish
a prima facie case in suppor of suppression befre DHS will be called upon to justif the
manner in which it obtained the evidence. See Matter of Tang, 13 I&N Dec. 691, 692 (BIA
1971); Matter of Wong 13 I&N Dec. 820, 822 (BIA 1971). Statements made in support of
suppression must be specifc, detailed, and based on personal knowledge rather than conjecte.
See Wong, 13 I&N Dec. at 822. A afdavit is insuffcient on its own to demonstrate that
evidence should be suppressed; however, if fcts alleged in an affdavit could suppor a basis fr
excluding the evidence in question, then the respondent must support his claim by testiony.
See Barcenas, 19 l&N Dec. at 611.
Te identity of a respondent is never itself suppressible "as the fuit of the poisonous
tree" even if an illegal arrest or interogation occured. See Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. at 1040;
Matter of Sandoval, 17 I&N Dec. 70, 79 (BIA 1979).
A. Fourh Amendment
The Fouh Amendment exclusionary rule that suppresses statements and other evidence
obtained as a result of an unlawfl, warrantless arrest in cririnal proceedings is generally
inapplicable to civil removal proceedings. See Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. at 1050. However, the
Supreme Court, the Eighth Circuit Cout of Appeals, and te BIA have caved out a exception
fr circumstances that involve "egregious violations of Fourth Amendment or other liberties that
might tansgress notions of fndamental firess and underine the probative value of the
evidence obtained." See id., at 1050-51; Puc-Ruiz v. Holder, 629 F.3d 771, 777-78 (8th Cir.
2010); Lopez-Gabriel v. Holder, 653 F.3d 683, 686 (8th Cir. 2011); Matter of Toro, 17 l&N Dec.
at 343.
2
A egregious constitutional violation is defned as "brutal conduct" which "shocks the
conscience" and "ofend[s] the community's sense of fair play and decency. " See Puc-Ruiz, 629
F.3d at 778 (citing Rochin v. Caliornia, 342 U.S. 165, 172-73 (1952)). While physical brtalit
is not required, there must be more than an illegal seizure or arest fr te violation to constitute
egregious conduct. See id (citing an unreasonable show or use of frce in arresting ad
2 In the Eighth Circuit, this exception seems to be narowing. In Garcia-Torres v. Holder, the Eighth Circuit Cour
of Appeals stated that "[t]his Cout has expressed doubt whether even an egregious violation by state or local
ofcers could justif exclusion in a fderal immigation proceeding, but the goverment does not raise that point
here, so we need not decide it" and went on to deterine that there was no evidence of egregious conduct. Garcia
Torres v. Holder, 201 l W 5105808 (8th Cir. October 28, 2011) (citing Lopez-Gabriel v. Holder, 653 F.3d 683,
686 (8t Cir. 2011 )).
2
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
detaining a respondent and an arest based on race or appearance as examples of conduct that
could constitute egregious constitutional violations).
The Eight Circuit has held that "a taffc violation - however minor - creates probable
cause to stop the driver of a vehicle." US. v. Linkous, 285 F.3d 716, 719 (8th Cir. 2002)
(quoting United States v. Barry, 98 F.3d 373, 376 (8th Cir. 1996)) (interal quotations omited).
Once a vehicle is validly stopped, the police may "conduct an investigation reasonably related i
scope" to the purpose of the stop. United States v. McCoy, 200 F.3d 582, 584 (8th Cir. 2000)
(citing United States v. Bloomfeld, 40 F.3d 910, 915 (8t Cir. 1994). A reasonable investigation
can include questioning of one's immigation status. See Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005).
Because the beneft of applying the exclusionary rule i te immigration context is to
deter unconstittional conduct by fderal immigration agents, the case fr excluding evidence
based upon alleged misconduct by a local police ofcer is even weaer since any deterent efect
would be highly attenuated. See Lopez-Gabriel v. Holder, 653 F.3d, at 686; see also Sandoval,
17 l&N Dec., at 83 ("[W]hen we balace what we consider to be the remote likelihood that the
exclusion of unlawflly seized evidence fom deporation proceedings would sigifcantly affct
the conduct of immigration offcers with the societal costs that could result fom such action and
te alteratives available to compel respect fr constitutional rights, we ae not satisfed tat
either legal or policy considerations dictate the exclusion of unlawlly seized evidence fom
[removal] proceedings.").
B. Form 1-213, Record ofDeportable/nadmissible Alien
A Form 1-213 is an offcial DHS record that is generally suffcient to meet the
government's evidentiay burden of establishing aprima facie case of removability. See Matter
of Mejia, 16 l&N Dec. 6, 9 (BIA 1976); Matter of Gomez-Gomez, 23 l&N Dec. 522, 524 (BIA
2002). Absent evidence that a For 1-213 contains infrmation that is inaccuate or obtained by
coercion or duress, it is considered an inerently trustworhy document admissible despite the
hearsay contained within the document. See id. A illegal arest tat leads to the suppression of
evidence in criminal proceedings has no bearing on removal proceedings. Mejia, 16 l&N Dec.,
at 8-9 (citing U.S. ex rel. Bilokumsk v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149 (1923)). Evidence of physical
presence cannot be suppressed a "fit of te poisoned tree." Id
III. Findings and Analysis
The Court fnds that the goverent has presented sufcient evidence justifing the
reason fr Respondent's arrest and subsequent ICE detention. The 1-213 states tat Respondent
was arrested by the Cedar Rapids (Iowa) Police Department on an outstanding warrant fr the
ofense of Fraudulent Practices Third Degree See 1-213 at Exhibit 2. Although the Respondent's
affdavit asserts that he was arrested by a Cedar Rapids Police Deparment ofcer fr Improper
Rear Lamps, No Driver's License, and No Insurance, it also indicates that he was infrmed of
the Fraudulent Practices chage when he appeared in cour the fllowing day. See respondent's
afdavit at Exhbit 4. While incarcerated fr these charges he ten was interogated by a
immigration agent who determined that he was a removable alien. See id. Nothing about ths
interaction suggests egregious conduct on behalf of the arresting ofcer or that any of the
3
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
inormation contained within the I-213 was obtained by coercion or duress that would call fr the
suppression of the 1-213.
Although te respondent asserts tat "racism was the real reason I was arrested", the
record indicates that the police ofcer had a reasonable basis fr stopping Respondent fr trafc
related and other reasons (supra.). Therefre, this Cou fnds that these actions do not constitute
an egregious violation of Respondent's Fourth Aendment rights.
Te Eighth Circuit noted that due process requires that te court only consider evidence
that is "probative and its admission fndaentally fir" and that "fairess is closely related to the
reliability and torthiness of te evidence." Banat v. Holder, 551F.3d 886 (8t Cir. 2009)
(quoting Tun v. Gonales, 485 F.3d 1014, 1025-26 (8th Cir. 2007) and Ezeaguna v. Ashcrof,
325 F.3d 396, 405 (3rd Cir. 2003) (interal quotatons ad citations omited)). In this case,
Respondent opposes te admission of the 1-213 which is presumed reliable unless tere is
evidence of inaccuracies or that the infration contained within the I-213 was obtained by
coercion or duress. See supra, Part H.B. As previously stated, Respondent has not demonstrated
circumstances that lead the Court to question the reliability of tis document. See supra, Part III.
The Court recogizes that the 1-213 contains hearsay evidence. However, this is not the
type of "highly unreliable hearsay" of which the Eighth Circuit Cour of Appeals was concered
"might raise due process problems" in Banat. See Banat, 551 F.3d, at 892. The hearsay
evidence in that case involved multiple layers and did not identif the original speaker. See id . .
Because hearsay is not prohibited in immigration proceedings, see 8 C.F.R. 1240.7(a), and there
is insufcient evidence that the hearsay evidence contained in the 1-213 is uneliable, the Cou
fnds that there is no basis fr suppressing the 1-213 or requiring that te author of the 1-213 be
made available fr cross examination by Respondent.
IV. Conclusion
For te above-stated reasons, the Court fnds that Respondent has failed to establish a
primafacie case in support of suppressing the evidence contaned in the 1-213. Therefre, the
Court denies his motion to suppress and fnds that its contents clearly and convincigly establish
both alienage and removability.
Although granted leave to fle an application fr asylum and with olding of removal, the
respondent did not do so, indicating that he requests only volunty deparue. Inasmuch as he is
statutorily eligible fr this frm of relief and the goverent has expressed no opposition, te
fllowing orders will therefre be entered:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Suppress is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in lieu of an order of removal the respondent be
granted voluntary departure without expense to te Goverent on or befre June 11, 2013, or
any extension beyond such date as may be granted by U.S. Imigation and Customs
4
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

, ,
. .
Enforcement fr the Department of Homeland Security ad under such conditions as the
Depaent shall impose.
IT IS FURTHER ORERED that the respondent post a voluntary departure bond in the
amount of $500 within fve (5) business days to the Depaent.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERD that if the respondent fils to post the required bond
witin fve (5) days or to depart when and as required, the privilege of voluntary departure shall
be withdrawn witout frther notice or proceedings and the fllowing order shall become
thereupon immediately efective: Respondent shall be removed fom te United States to
Mexico on the charge contained in the Notice to A


James R. Fujimoto
Immigration Judge
5
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
A205-002-826
NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS
GRANTED VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE
You have been ganted the privilege of voluntarily depating fom the United States of America. The
Court advises you that, if you fil to voluntarily depart the United States within the time period
specifed, a removal order will automatically be entered against you. Pursuat to section 240B( d) of
the Immigration ad Nationality Act, you will also be subject to the fllowing penalties:
1. You will be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000; and
2. You will be ineligible, fr a period of 10 years, to receive cancellation of removal,
adjustment of status, registry, voluntar departure, or a chage of nonimmigrant status.
The Court frter advises you that:
0 You have been granted pre-conclusion voluntary departure.
1. If you fle a motion to reopen or reconsider during the voluntary departure period, the grant
of voluntar departure will be terminated automatically, the alterate order of removal will
take efect immediately, and the penalties fr filure to depart voluntarily under section
240B(d) of the Act will not apply. 8 C.F.R.' 1240.26(b)(3)(iii).
2. There is a civil monetary penalty if you fil to depr1 within the voluntary deparure period.
In accordance with the regulation, the Cour has set the presumptive amount of $3,000 (or
_ instead of the presumptive amount). 8 C.F.R.' 1240.260).
You have been granted post-conclusion voluntary departure.
1. If the Court set any additional conditions, you were advised of them, and were given an
opportunity to accept or decline them. As you have accepted them, you must comply with
the additional conditions. 8 C.F.R.' 1240.26(c)(3).
2. The Court set a specifc bond amount. You were advised of the bond amount, and were
given an opportunity to accept or decline it. As you have accepted it, you have a duty to
post that bond with the Departent of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs
Enfrcement, Field Ofce Director within 5 business days of the Courts order grating
voluntary departure. 8 C.F.R.' 1240.26(c)(3)(i).
3. If you have reserved your right to appeal, then you have the absolute right to appeal the
decision. If you do appeal, you must provide to the Board oflmmigration Appeals, witin
30 days of fling an appeal, suffcient proof of having posted the voluntay departure bond.
The Board will not reinstate the voluntary departure period in its fnal order if you do not
submit timely proof to the Board that the voluntary departure bond has been posted.
8 C.F.R.' 1240.26(c)(3)(ii).
4. If you do not appeal and instead fle a motion to reopen or reconsider during the voluntar
departure period, the period allowed fr voluntary departure will not be stayed, tolled, or
extended, the grant of voluntary departure will be terminated automatically, the alterate
order of removal will take efect imediately, and the penalties fr failure to depart
voluntarily under section 240B(d) of the Act will not apply. 8 C.F.R." 1240.26(c)(3)(iii),
(e)(l).
5. There is a civil monetary penalty if you fil to depart within the voluntary departue period.
In accordance with the regulation, the Cou has set the presumptive amount of $3,000 (or
_ instead of the presumptive amount). 8 C.F.R.' 1240.26().
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
.
.


L1N1TAT1ONS ON D1SCRBT1ONARY RBL1BF FOR FA1LURB TO APPEA
1 YOu DVe DeeD BCDeOu1eO OI IemOV1 DeI1Dg \ \De L1me DU g1Ce
BeL OILD OD LDe LLCDeO BDeeL. F11uIe LO ggeI OI LD1B DeI1Dg
O\DeI LDD DeCUBe O eXCegL1OD1 C1ICU0BLDCeB DeyODO yOUI COD\IO1
w111 IeBu1L 1D yOuI De1Dg OuD 1De11g1D1e OI CeIL1D OI0B O
Ie11e uDUeI LDe 10m1gIL1OD DU NL1OD11Ly ACL |Bee SeC\1OD A.
De1Ow) OI geI1OO O LeD |1) yeIB LeI LDe OLe O eDLIy O LDe
1D1 OIOeI O Ie0OV1.
2. YOu DVe DeeD BCDeOU1eO OI D By1um DeI1Dg, \ LDe \1me DO g1Ce
BeL OILD OD LDe L\CDe DOL1Ce. F11UIe \O ggeI OI LD1B DeI1Dg
O\DeI LDD DeCuBe O eXCeg\1OD1 C1ICumBLDCeB DeyOD yOUI COD\IO1
w111 IeBu1L 1D yOuI De1Dg OuDO 1De11g1D1e OI CeI\1D OI0B O Ie11e
uDeI LDe 1mm1gI\1OD DO NL1OD11Ly ACL (Bee SeCL1OD A. Be1Ow} OI
geI1OO O LeD (1) yeIB IO0 LDe O\e O yOUI BCDeOU1eU DeI1Dg.
3. YOu DVe DeeD gIDLe VO1UDLIy OegI\UIe IO0 LDe UD1LeU SLLeB
guIBUDL LO BeCL1OD 24B O LDe 10m1gIL1OD DU NL1OD11Ly AC\, DU
Ie01D1Dg 1D LDe UD1\eU S\\eB DeyODO LDe ULDOI12eU OL OLDeI LDD
DeCuBe O eXCegL1OD1 C1ICu0BLDCeB DeyODO yOuI CODLIO1 w111 IeBU1\
1D yOuI De1Dg 1De11g1D1e OI CeIL1D OImB O Ie11e UuUeI LDe
10m1gI\1OD D NL1OD11Ly ACL (Bee SeC\1OD A. De1Ow) OI \eD |1)
yeIB IOm LDe OLe O \De BCDeOU1e OegILuIe OI LDe OLe O UD1wU1
IeeDLIy, IeBgeC\1Ve1y. YOuI VO1uD\Iy OegI\UIe DODU 1 Dy w111
1BO De DIeCDe AOU1L1OD11y, 1 yOu 11 \O VO1UD\I11y OegIL \De
UD1Le SLLeB w1LD1D LDe L1me geI1OU BgeC11eO yOU BD11 De BUD_eC\
LO C1V11 geD1Ly O DOL 1eBB LDD 1 DU DOL mOIe \DD 5.
4. A OIUeI O Ie0OV1 DB DeeD eDLeIeO g1DBL yOu. 1 yOU 11 LO
ggeI gUIBUD\ LO 1D1 OIUeI O Ie0OV1 \ LDe \1me DO g1Ce
OIeIeO Dy LDe 1NS, OLDeI LDD DeCuBe O eXCegL1OD1 C1ICUmB\DCeB
DeyOD yOuI CODLIO1 yOu w111 DOL De e11g1D1e OI CeIL1D OI0B O
Ie11e UDOeI LDe 1mm1gIL1OD DO NL1OD11Ly ACL (Bee SeCL1OD A.
De1Ow) OI LeD |1) yeIB \eI \De OLe yOu Ie BCDeOu1eU \O ggeI.
LDe LeIm "eXCegL1OD1 C1ICU0BLDCeB" IeeIB LO C1ICUmBLDCeB BUCD
B BeI1OUB 111DeBB O LDe 11eD OI Ue\D O D 100eU1Le Ie1\1Ve
O LDe 11eD DUL DOL 1DC1UO1Dg 1eBB CO0ge111Dg C1ICU0BLDCeB.
A. THE FORNS OF RBL1BF FRON RENOVAL FOR NH1CH YOU H1LL BECONE 1NBL1G1BLE ARE:
I) VO1UD\Iy OegILuIe B gIOV1OeO OI 1D BeCL1OD 24B O LDe
1001gI\1OD DO NL1OD11Ly ACL
2) CDCe11L1OD O Ie0OV1 B gIOV1OeU OI 1D BeCL1OD 24A O LDe
1001gI\1OD DO NL1OD11Ly ACL DU
3) AU_UBL0eD\ O B\LUB OI CDDge O BLLuB B gIOV1OeO OI 1D BeC\1OD
24b, 248 OI 249 O LDe 1m01gIL1OD DO NL1OD11Ly ACL.
TD1B wI1\LeD DOL1Ce wB gIOV1OeU LO \De 11eD 1D EDg11BD. OI1 DOL1Ce O
LDe COD\eDLB O LD1B DOL1Ce 0UBL De g1VeD LO LDe 11eD 1D D1B/DeI DL1Ve
1Dguge, OI 1D 1D ge De/BDe u eIBLDB Dy LDe 10m1gIL1OD JUOge.
DLe: AgI 12, 213
10m1gIL1OD JUUge or Court C1eIk:
SBRVBD BY: NA1L SONAL SERV1C P) TH1S DOCUNBNT HAS
TO : [ ] AL1BN [
DATB: ' f} /
CERT1F1CA OF SERV1CE
] P1EN C/O CUBLOO11 O1CeI AL1BN'B ATT/REP 1NB
A\\CDmeDLB
BY: COURT STAFF /
[ ] EO1R~33 [ ] EO1R-28 [Le g 1SeIV1CeBL 1B\ [ ] OLDeI
Y3
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