Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Justice
A 078-326-812
Date of this notice: 2/18/2016
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,
bonrtL C
t1/VL)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Grant. Edward R.
Userteam: Docket
Date:
FEB 1 8 2016
APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Nikolay Iordanov, Esquire
APPLICATION: Reopening
The respondent, a native and citizen of EI Salvador, appeals from the April 20, 2015, 1
order of an Immigration Judge denying the respondent's motion to reopen. The Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) has not filed a brief in reply to the appeal. The record will be
remanded.
In the respondent's motion to reopen, she sought sua sponte reopening, and also sought
asylum based upon changed country conditions.
The Immigration Judge's decision, in its present form, does not contain sufficient
findings of fact and conclusions of law to allow for meaningful appellate review. See Matter of
M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (holding that an Immigration Judge must identify and fully
explain the reasons for denying a motion to reopen; otherwise, the parties are deprived of a fair
opportunity to contest the Immigration Judge's determination on appeal). The Immigration
Judge's handwritten order notes there was personal service of the Notice to Appear and further
notes that the respondent's delay in waiting 14 years to address her status is an adverse
discretionary factor. The Immigration Judge did not address specifically the merits of the
respondent's sua sponte request; nor did the Immigration Judge address the respondent's asylum
claim.
Under the circumstances, the Immigration Judge's handwritten order is insufficient to
place the respondent and this Board on notice of the specific reasons for the decision.
Accordingly, the record will be returned to the Immigration Judge for further consideration of
the motion to reopen, and, should the motion to reopen again be denied, for preparation of a
decision that contains full fact-finding and clearly articulates the legal basis for the decision.
If the motion to reopen is denied upon remand, upon preparation of a new decision, the
Immigration Judge shall issue an order returning the record to the Board, and shall serve that
order on the respondent and the DHS. The Board will thereafter provide the parties an
opportunity to submit briefs in accordance with the regulations.
1
The order was not mailed to the respondent until September 16, 2015.
Cite as: Vitelia Marilu Gutierrez-Contrerras, A078 326 812 (BIA Feb. 18, 2016)
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
2
Cite as: Vitelia Marilu Gutierrez-Contrerras, A078 326 812 (BIA Feb. 18, 2016)
M<tt?!J, V
RESPONDBNT/APPUCANT
Case No.: A
o,-)13.U,.l2.
Docket:+., J
IN
ORDEROFTHEIMMIGRA'fiONJUDGE
Upon consideration of respondent's/applicant's
Motion to Reconsider an Inmigration Judge's decision
Motion to Reopen proceedings
filed in the above entitled matter, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the motion
PR.OCBEDINOS