U.S.

Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals

Office of the Clerk
5107 leesburg Pike, S11ile 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 20530

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - BAL

31 Hopkins Plaza, Room 1600

Baltimore, MD 21201

Name: ATSEYINKU, IRENE 0

A 058-536-724

Date of this n otice: 1/21/2015

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,

DCinltL ct2tVU
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members:
Pauley, Roger
Wendtland, Linda S.
Greer, Anne J.

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Irene O. Atseyinku, A058 536 724 (BIA Jan. 21, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

AGUOCHA, CHRISTIAN U.

1401 Mercantile Lane, Suite 2000

Largo, MD 20774

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

U.S. Department of Justice

Exeutive Office for Immigration Review
Falls Church, Virginia 20530

File: A058 536 724 - Baltimore, MD

Date:

JAN

212015

In re: IRENE 0. ATSEYINKU

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:

Christian U. Aguocha, Esquire

CHARGE:
Notice: Sec.

212(a){7)(A)(i)(I), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I)] Immigrant - no valid immigrant visa or entry document

APPLICATION: Admission

This case was last before us on November 14, 2012, when the respondent appealed the
Immigration Judge's February 10, 2011, decision finding that the respondent abandoned her
lawful permanent resident status. This Board remanded the record to the Immigration Court for
further factual findings regarding the respondent's intent to maintain her lawful status in the
United States. On February 14, 2013, the Immigration Judge again found that the respondent
abandoned her lawful permanent resident status and is removable as charged. The respondent
timely appeals the Immigration Judge's February 14, 2013, decision. The respondent argues on
appeal that the Department of Homeland Security ("OHS") did not prove by clear and
convincing evidence that she abandoned her lawful permanent resident status. Matter of Huang,
19 I&N Dec. 749 (BIA 1988) (holding that the DHS has the burden of establishing abandonment
with clear and convincing evidence). The record will be remanded to the Immigration Court for
further findings consistent with this order.
The respondent, a native and citizen of Nigeria, became a lawful permanent resident in
October of 2006. After her initial entry, the respondent returned to Nigeria several times. The
Immigration Judge found that the respondent was physically present in the United States 70 out
of the 1,066 days between her initial entry as a lawful permanent resident and the issuance of the
Notice to Appear ("NTA") (Form I-862) on September 3, 2009 (l.J. at 6; Exh. I). The respondent
asserts that the length of her absence was initially caused by her need to care for her ill mother,
and that during her September 2008 to September 2009 absence she was caught in a custody
dispute with the father of her daughter, whom she wished to bring permanently to the United
States (l.J. at 6-7). In support of her claim that she intended to maintain her status, she testified
that she looked for jobs, gave someone money to purchase a car for her, filed taxes, and opened
a bank account (l.J. at 7-9). The Immigration Judge did not believe the respondent's alleged
intent; however, he did not enter an explicit adverse credibility finding.

Cite as: Irene O. Atseyinku, A058 536 724 (BIA Jan. 21, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

APPEAL

AOS8 536 724

ORDER: The record will be remanded to the Immigration Court for further findings
consistent with this decision.

Board member Anne J.

Greer respectfully dissents and would uphold the Immigration

Judge's:deiort

2
Cite as: Irene O. Atseyinku, A058 536 724 (BIA Jan. 21, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

For the following reasons, we find it necessary to remand the record for further factual
findings. First, the Immigration Judge found that the respondent submitted insufficient evidence
of active efforts to find employment prior to being placed in proceedings (I.J. at 8). The record,
however, contains letters from two companies (not merely one company, as indicated by the
Immigration Judge) indicating that the respondent had applied for a position in 2006, which was
prior to service of the NTA in September of 2009 (Exh. l; Exh. 3, Tab F). Second, the
Immigration Judge questioned the respondent's claim that she intended to have her daughter
remain in the United States permanently because there was no evidence that the respondent
enrolled her daughter in school prior to service of the NTA (I.J. at 6). The Immigration Judge,
however, did not consider the two corroborating letters the respondent submitted, which state
that the respondent's daughter was the subject of a family feud that could not be resolved until
September 2009 (Exh. 3, Tabs C, D). Thus, the respondent may have been unable to bring her
daughter to the United States until the dispute was resolved in September of 2009. Inasmuch as
the above described documents provide material evidence regarding the respondenfs intent we
will remand the record so that the Immigration Judge may enter further factual findings in that
regard.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGR.ATION REVIEW

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

ATSEYINKU, Irene 0.

A# 058-536-724

RESPONDENT

CHARGE:

Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

("INA" or "Act"), as amended, as an immigrant who, at the time of
application for admission, is not in possession of a valid unexpired
immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing card, or other valid
entry document required by the Act, and a valid unexpired
passport, or other suitable travel document, or document or identity
and nationality as required under the regulations issued by the
Attorney General under section 2 1 l(a) of the Act.

APPLICATIONS:

Admission as returning resident.

APPEARANCES
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE DHS:

Christian U. Aguocha, Esq.

7600 Georgia Avenue NW, Suite 403
Washington, DC 20012

Jennifer Piateski, Esq.

Assistant Chief Counsel
31 Hopkins Plaza l 61h Floor
Baltimore, MD 2 1201

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

IN THE MATTER OF

DECISION AND ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

I.

Statement of the Case

The respondent is a female native and citizen of Nigeria, born August 4, 1972. She
entered the United States on October 4, 2006, as a lawful permanent resident. After repeated
trips between the United States and Nigeria, the respondent attempted to enter the United States

INS served the respondent with a Notice to Appear ("NTA'') charging her with removability
under INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), alleging that she had "not aintained [her] Lawful Permanent
Status in the United States by living and working in [her] native country of Nigeria." See Exhibit
1.
On June l , 20 I 0, the respondent, through counsel, admitted allegations 1 through 4
contained in her NTA, conceding the following: 1) she is not a citizen or national of the United
States; 2) she is a native and citizen of Nigeria; 3) she was admitted as a Lawful Permanent
Resident on October 4, 2006, in Virginia; and 4) she applied for admission as a Returning
Lawful Permanent Resident on September 3, 2009. Id. The respondent denied allegation 5, that
she has not maintained her Lawful Permanent Status in the United States by living and working
in her native country of Nigeria. Id. The respondent also denied the charge of removability
under INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Id. Subsequent proceedings were held on the contested charge.
The respondent testified at a hearing on January 26, 2011. On February 10, 20 1 1, the
Court rendered an oral decision finding that the respondent abandoned her status as a lawful
permanent resident and is removable as charged. See Transcript of the Oral Decision of the

Court in the Matter of Irene 0. Atseyinku, A058-536-724 (February 10, 20 11) ("Court
Decision").
The respondent appealed the Court's decision to the. Board of Immigration Appeals ("the
Board") on March 1 1, 2011. On November 14, 20 12, the Board remanded the case back to the
Court for further proceedings consistent with its findings. See In re Irene 0. Atseyinku, A058-

536-724 (BIA Nov. 14, 2012) ("Remand Decision").

Specifically, the Board asked the Court to make complete findings of fact on the
following issues: 1) the respondent's claim that her travels to Nigeria were primarily motivated
by a desire to visit her ailing mother; 2) the respondent's claimed purchase of a car in the United
States through a friend; 3) the respondent's claim that she sought employment in the United
2

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

at Baltimore Washington International Airport ("BWI") on September 3, 2009. At that time, the

c
States; 4) the respondent's filing of United States truces and maintenance of a U.S.-based bank
account, credit card, and cellular telephone while she was in Nigeria; and 5) statements made by
the respondent during her airport interview, her apparent withdrawal of her application for
admission, and her explanations for those statements and the withdrawal, and her reasons for

Accordingly, the Court's written opinion and order now follow.

II. Evidence Presented

A. Testimonial Evidence

The respondent testified at a hearing on January 26, 2011. Her testimony was
subsequently transcribed while the case was on appeal before the Board. Consequently, the
Court will rely on that transcript to refer to any testimonial evidence in its decision. See
generally Transcript of Hearings in In re Irene 0. Atseyinku, A058-536-724 ("Transcript").
B. Documentary Evidence

The following exhibits were admitted into evidence:

Exhibit 1:

Notice to Appear (Dated September 3, 2009)

Exhibit 2:

Government's Group Exhibit A-E

A. Record of Arrival and Departure in the United States
B. Record of Respondent's Sworn Statement
C. Record of Withdrawal of Application for Admission
D. Copy of Respondent's Passport
E. Copy of Respondent's Permanent Resident Card

Exhibit 3:

Respondent's Motion to Terminate Proceedings and Supporting Documents A-L

A. Form I-551 Permanent Resident Card
B.

Notice to Appear (Dated September 3, 2009)

C. Sworn Affidavit of Patricia 0. Atseyinku

D. Sworn Affidavit of Anthony Nwosu
E. Middle School Enrollment Records
3

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

those absences. Id.

F. Respondent's Job Search Documents

G. Respondent's 2007 & 2008 State and Federal U.S. Tax Returns
H. Maryland Certificate of Title and Vehicle Registration Certificate
I.

Bank of America Check Card/ATM Transactions Record

J. Credit Card Account Statements

L. Respondent's Driver's License

Exhibit 4:

III.

Court's Order Denying Respondent's Motion to Terminate Proceedings

Statement of Law

In general, even if an alien makes frequent visits to the United States, she can lose her
lawful permanent resident ("LPR") status if she spends long periods of time abroad without
intending that the United States be her permanent place of residence. See, e.g., Matter ofHuang,
19 I&N Dec. 749, 754 (BIA 1988); Karimijanaki

v.

Holder, 519 F.3d 710, 715 (6th Cir. 2009).

The burden is on the government to prove abandonment by "clear, unequivocal, and convincing
evidence." Huang, 19 l&N Dec. at 754.
In determining whether or not a respondent has abandoned her lawful permanent resident
status, the Court will consider the totality of the circumstances, including "the location of the
alien's family, property, and job, and of course the length of the alien's trip(s) abroad,, along with
"other evidence in the record demonstrating the alien's intent with regard to maintaining her LPR

status." Karimijanaki, 5 79 F.3d at 715 (citing Hana v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 472, 476 (6th Cir.
2005)). Resolving important matters abroad, for example, caring for an ill relative, or bringing
family members to the United States may constitute a valid basis for an extended absence from
the United States. See Hana, 400 F.3d at 476 (upholding alien's LPR status where she spent her
extended absence from the United States in Iraq to prepare her family for their emigration to the
United States and to help her terminally ill mother-in-law).
If the trip abroad is temporary we will not terminate a lawful permanent resident's status.

See INA 10l(a)(27). Whether a respondent's trip abroad is temporary, for purposes of
determining if she abandoned her lawful permanent resident status, depends on if (a) it is for a
relatively short period, fixed by some early event, or (b) will terminate upon the occurrence of an
4

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

K. AT&T Telephone Bill Statements

c
event that has a reasonable possibility of occurring within a relatively short period of time. See
INA 101(a)(13)(C)(i, ii); 8 U.S.C.A. 1101(a)(13)(C)(i, ii); see also Huang, 19 I&N Dec. 753.
Even if a respondent's time abroad is not relatively short or lacks a fixed termination date, it can
still be considered temporary if the alien had a "continuous, uninterrupted intention to return to
the United States during the entirety of [her] visit." Aleem v. Perryman, 114 F.3d 672, 677 (7th

testimony, "such factors as the alien's familial, financial, business and professional ties to the
United States and foreign countries, as well as any relevant conduct while abroad." Id. (citing

Chavez-Ramirez v.

I.NS.,

792 F.2d 932 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Finally, repeated, but very brief, returns to the United States over an extended period can
indicate a lack of intent to remain a lawful permanent resident. See Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d
415, 420 (5th Cir. 2003). For example, abandonment has been upheld where a lawful permanent
resident took several short trips to the United States resulting in a total of only six months in the
United States over a 54-month period. See id.

IV.

Findings of Fact

The Court has considered the documentary evidence in the record and the testimony
presented, as well as the arguments of counsel. The Court finds that the government has met its
burden of demonstrating by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the respondent
abandoned her lawful permanent resident status. See Huang, 19 I&N Dec. at 754.
The respondent was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on
October 4, 2006, through the diversity visa lottery. See Exhibit 1. According to OHS records,
the respondent left the country 17 days later on October 20, 2006, and arrived again on
September 5, 2007. See Exhibit 2, Tab A. After spending only 22 days in the United States, she
left on September 26, 2007, and returned on December 2, 2007. See id. After merely 5 days, she
left on December 6, 2007, and arrived on March 22, 2008. See id. After only 6 days, she left on
March 27, 2008, and arrived on August 21, 2008. See id. After 20 days, she left on September 9,
2008, and, after spending almost an entire year abroad, arrived at BWI on September 3, 2009.

See id. The respondent established through her own testimony that she had taken ''about three or
four" trips to Nigeria and that her longest trip in 2008 lasted "approximately 11 months."

Transcript at 28.
5

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Cir. 1997). The Court can determine such intent by considering, in addition to Respondent's

c
A cursory review of the respondent's arrival and departure records show that the
respondent did not intend to make the United States her permanent residence. Her stays in the
United States decreased in duration from approximately 22 days to 5 and 6 days. See Exhibit 2,
Tab A. Between September 26, 2007, and August 21, 2008, the respondent spent only 11 days
in the country over the course of approximately 11 months. See id. Furthermore, DHS records
1,066 days between October 4, 2006, and September 3, 2009, when she was placed in removal
proceedings. See id. The respondent offered no evidence that she ever sought advanced
permission to enter before any of her lengthy trips to Nigeria.
The respondent offered two explanations for her extended travels abroad. First, she
claimed that she returned to Nigeria to take care of her ailing mother. Second, she contended that
she was arranging for her daughter to move to the United States from Nigeria. The Court is
unconvinced by the respondent's testimony that she took numerous trips abroad to arrange for
her daughter to come to the United States, as there is no evidence in the record that the
respondent's daughter was enrolled in a U.S. school before the respondent was placed in removal
proceedings. Her daughter's immunization records were dated September 29, 2009, and no
evidence was submitted to indicate that she was enrolled before that date in a U.S. school. See
Exhibit 3, Tab E. The respondent testified that her daughter never permanently lived in or
attended school in the United States before 2009 although her daughter also holds permanent
resident status. Transcript at 4 7. Most importantly, the respondent stated upon her last entry at
BWI on September 3, 2009, that she intended to take her daughter back to school in Nigeria. See
Exhibit 2, Tab B. The Court does not find that the respondent's preparation to bring her
daughter to the United States would have accounted for her remarkably short periods of time in
the United States and her dramatically long periods of time in Nigeria.
Many of the respondent's trips to Nigeria lacked a fixed end point while her trips to the
United States were very brief. See Moin, 335 F.3d at 420. Even when she arrived at BWI on
September 3, 2009, she had a roundtrip ticket to return to Nigeria, indicating that it was likely
that she would return to her native country because of the issues with her daughter's father. See

Transcript at 49-50. When considered with the other evidence in the record, the respondent's
repeated, extended absences from the United States establish that she did not intend to maintain

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

establish that the respondent was physically present in the United States only 70 days out of the

her lawful permanent resident status. Accordingly, the following are the Court's findings on the
matters specifically requested by the Board.

1.

The respondent's claim that her travels to Nigeria were primarily motivated by a

Beyond the respondent's own testimony, there is no evidence in the record that her
travels to Nigeria were primarily motivated by a desire to visit her ailing mother. In her
testimony, the respondent failed to elaborate on her mother's ailment, stating that her mother
"has been sick for a while" and that she "had to take care of her." Id. at 27 & 30. The
respondent's mother, Patricia 0. Aiseyinku, stated in an affidavit submitted by the respondent
that her daughter's reasons for extended trips away from the United States included "visits with
her family" and resolution of a custody disagreement between the respondent and the father of
the respondent's daughter. See Exhibit 3, Tab C. Nowhere in her own affidavit does the
respondent's mother state that she is ailing or that the respondent ever traveled to Nigeria to care
for her. See id.
The respondent's case is distinguishable from Hana

v.

Gonzales, in which the court held

that the respondent did not abandon her lawful permanent resident status where she spent long
periods of time in Iraq to care for her terminally ill mother-in-law and to protect her family from
the Iraqi regime until they obtained U.S. visas. 400 F.3d at 477. Instead, it appears that the
respondent chose to spend the majority of her time in Nigeria over a nearly three-year period
with no intention to return to the United States permanently at any date. The respondent has
submitted no evidence that her presence in Nigeria was necessary to help and support her
mother. In fact, the respondent testified, and her mother's affidavit indicates, that her parents
supported her during her brief visits to the United States. See Transcript at 31; see also Exhibit 3,
Tab C.

2.

The respondent's claimed purchase of a car in the United States through a friend.

The respondent submitted into evidence a Maryland Certificate of Title for a 2008 Toyota
RAV4 dated August 17, 2009, designating the respondent's friend as the registered owner. See
Exhibit 3, Tab H. The title indicates that the respondent's friend sold the car to the respondent
on September 1, 2010, nearly a year after the respondent was placed in removal proceedings. See
7

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

desire to visit her ailing mother.

c
id. Furthermore, the respondent's Nationwide automobile insurance was effective September 14,
20 I 0. See id There is no indication that the respondent purchased an automobile before
September 2009 with the intention of living permanently in the United States. Instead, the Court
is persuaded that the respondent's car's title was transferred into her name and the subsequent
automobile insurance was purchased because she was placed in removal proceedings.

The respondent's claim that she sought employment in the United States.

When questioned by the government, the only reason proffered by the respondent for her
exceptionally short visits to the United States was to find a job. See Transcript at 45-46.
However, the respondent submitted no evidence that she actively sought employment before she
was placed in removal proceedings. The respondent testified that she successfully obtained
employment only after being placed in removal proceedings. See id. at 32-33. Apart from one
email from Bankers Life and Casualty Company dated December 29, 2006, the earliest email
correspondence with potential employers submitted by the respondent was dated October 14,
2009, more than one month after she was placed in removal proceedings. See Exhibit 3, Tab F.
Furthermore, one would assume that an individual actively Seeking employment in the United
States would spend more than five to 22 days at a time in the country engaging in a job search
and establishing roots. Therefore, the Court is unconvinced that the respondent's minimal job
search efforts, which were made after she was placed in removal proceedings, reflect an intention
to maintain her lawful permanent resident status.

4.

The respondent's tiling of United States taxes and maintenance of a U.S.-based bank
account, credit card, and cellular telephone while she was in Nigeria.

A respondent can abandon her lawful permanent resident status despite having filed
United States income tax returns while abroad. See, e.g., Aleem v. Perryman, 114 F.3d 672 (7th
Cir. 1997) (holding lawful permanent residents' filing of U.S. income tax returns while they
were abroad did not preclude their exclusion on ground that they intended to abandon their
lawful permanent resident status where evidence showed that they did not hold continuous,
uninterrupted intention to return to the United States). First, the respondent submitted into
evidence her state and federal U.S. tax returns from 2007 and 2008, but neither indicated that she
made any taxable income. See Exhibit 3, Tab G. Such de minimis contact with the United States
8

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

3.

does not persuade the Court that the respondent intended to make the United States her
p ermanent residence.
The respondent submitted into evidence a Check Card/ ATM deduction in the amount of
$160.00 from a Bank of America account dated September 9, 2008. See Exhibit 3, Tab I. There
is no evidence, however, of the amount of funds in her Bank of America account or whether the

Second, the respondent's use of her United States credit cards was minimal; the balance
of five credit card statements admitted into evidence is $0.QO. See Exhibit 3, Tab J. The only
credit card statement with a balance (of $181.49) was that for the billing period ending on
October 19, 2009, over one month after the respondent was placed in removal proceedings. See
id
Third, the respondent submitted several cell phone bills dated between September 7,
2008, and May 6, 2009. See Exhibit 3, Tab K. Some of the bills indicate that the respondent
called and sent text messages to numbers in the United States while she was in Nigeria and that
she called and sent text messages to numbers in Nigeria while she was in the United States. See
id When considered with the other evidence in the record, the Court is not persuaded that the use
of a cell phone for a period of less than one year indicates that the respondent intended to
maintain her lawful permanent resident status.

5.

Statements made by the respondent during her airport interview, her apparent
withdrawal of her application for admission, and her explanations before the IJ for
those statements and the withdrawal, and her reasons for those absences.

The respondent signed a Sworn Statement upon arriving at BWI on September 3, 2009,
stating that she "intended to stay about 11 days and then take back [her] daughter to school in
Nigeria." See Exhibit 2, Tab B. She further stated that she was never employed and owns no
property in the United States. See id. On September 4, 2009, a Withdraw of Application for
Admission/Consular Notification was filed for the respondent. See Exhibit 2, Tab C.1
Subsequently, the respondent testified before this Court that at the time she made the sworn

The Court notes that the respondent signed the Sworn Statement, but did not sign the Withdraw
of Application for Admission. See Exhibit 2, Tabs B & C.
9

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

account was created before the respondent was placed in removal proceedings.

c
statement and withdrew her application for admission, she was "stressed out" and had been held
for approximately six hours. Transcript at 37.
While the respondent's sworn statements are relevant to the instant case, the Court finds
the record replete with other evidence indicating her lack of intent to make the United States her
permanent residence. Therefore, the Court concludes that the statements made by the respondent

unnecessary to find that the respondent intended to abandon her lawful permanent resident status.

V.

Conclusion

Having reviewed all of the available evidence, the Court finds that the government has
shown by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence that the respondent has abandoned her
lawful permanence resident status. The respondent's repeated, but very brief, visits to the United
States indicate her lack of intent to remain a lawful permanent resident. Her travels abroad were
not "temporary" pursuant to INA 10l(a)(27) and the Court is convinced that, based on the
totality of the circumstances, the respondent did not intend to make the United States her
permanent residence. The respondent has not requested any relief from removal. The Court,
therefore, sustains the charge of removability under INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) and will order the
respondent removed to Nigeria. An appropriate order is attached.

2-,

Date

<

-tY-t3

Llt

C rosland

United States Immigration Judge

Baltimore, Maryland

10

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

during her airport interview and her apparent withdraw of her application for admission are

c
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

A# 058-536-724

ATSEYINKU, Irene 0.

RESPONDENT

CHARGE:

Section 2 l 2(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

("INA" or "Act"), as amended, as an immigrant who, at the time of
application for admission, is not in possession of a valid unexpired
immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing card, or other valid
entry document required by the Act, and a valid unexpired
passport, or other suitable travel document, or document or identity
and nationality as required under the regulations issued by the
Attorney General under section 21 l(a) of the Act.

APPLICATIONS:

Admission as returning resident.

APPEARANCES
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE DHS:

Christian U.

Jennifer Piateski, Esq.

Assistant Chief Counsel
31 Hopkins Plaza l 61h Floor
Baltimore, MD 2120 I

Aguocha, Esq.
7600 Georgia Avenue NW, Suite 403
Washington, DC 20012

II

_J

.... ..6J .. .. .S.i::xv:l

: fo::dJW.0

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF

ORDER

2)-..-2013, by the United States Immigration

It is this / 4- day of ..:T;W-.

Court, sitting at Baltimore, Maryland, ORDERED:

that the respondent's application as returning resident is DENIED; and

II.

that the respondent shall be REMOVED to Nigeria as charged.

ifaldCTOs

United States Immigration Judge

Baltimore, Maryland

12

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

I.