U.S.

Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals

Office of the Clerk
5/07 leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church. Virginia 20530

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - DEN

Lilian Shea Law Office, LLC

12371 E. Cornell Ave., #15
Aurora, CO 80014

12445 East Caley Avenue

Centennial, CO 80111-5663

- Name: DIMAS-LOPEZ, EDMUNDO

A 076-799-635

Date of this notice: 2/10/2015

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

DCrutL caAA.J
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk

Enclosure
Panel Members:
Grant, Edward R.

Userteam: Docket

For our Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions

Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index

Cite as: Edmundo Dimas-Lopez, A076 799 635 (BIA Feb. 10, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Shea, Lilian, Esquire

U.S. Departient of Justice

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 20530

File:

Date:

A076 799 635 - Denver, Cb

FEB l 0 2015

In re: EDMUNDO DIMAS-LOPEZ

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:

Lilian Shea, Esquire

P. Michael Truman

ON BEHALF OF DHS:

Assistant Chief Assistant

APPLICATION:

Continuance; remand

The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, has appealed the Immigration Judge's
decision dated May 30, 2013, denying his motion for a continuance. On October 17, 2013, the
respondent submitted an appeal supplement, which we construe

as

a motion to remand.

The

Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") opposes the appeal. The record will be remanded
for further proceedings.
We review an Immigration Judge's findings of fact for clear error, but questions of law,
discretion, and judgment, and all other issues in appeals, are reviewed de novo.

8 C.F.R.

1003. l(d)(3)(i), (ii).

On appeal, the respondent contends that the Immigration Juge erred in denying the motion
to continue to allow him to seek relief through a Form 1-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status.
The respondent states that the Supplement B had not been processed by the corresponding law
enforcement agency in time

for the hearing.

The Immigration Judge denied the respondent's motion to continue because the respondent
had not obtained a required law enforcement certification, and the nonimmigrant
prima facie approvable.

See Matter of Sanchez Sosa, 25

U visa was not

I&N Dec. 897 (BIA 2012) (stating that,

in the absence of an approved law enforcement certification, an alien generally cannot show
good cause for a continuance to await processing of a U visa); 8 C.F.R.

214.14(c)(2)(i).

Subsequent to filing an appeal, the respondent submitted new documentary evidence in the form
of a law enforcement certification, Form 1-918 Supplement B, indicating that he may be prima
facie eligible for relief in the form of a non-immigrant U visa. Considering this new evidence, as
well as the DHS opposition, we will remand these proceedings to the Immigration Judge to
determine if a continuance is warranted while the respondent pursues a Form 1-918, Petition for
U Nonimmigrant Status, with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Cite as: Edmundo Dimas-Lopez, A076 799 635 (BIA Feb. 10, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

APPEAL AND MOTION

A076 799 635'

Accordingly, the following order wiil be entered.

ORDER: The motion is granted, and the record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for
further proceedings consistent with th foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Cite as: Edmundo Dimas-Lopez, A076 799 635 (BIA Feb. 10, 2015)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
DENVER, COLORADO

In the Matter of

)
)

EDMUNDO D IMAS-LOPEZ

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

)
)

RESPONDENT

Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as

CHARGE:

amended - Present in the United States without being admitted or

paroled.

APPLICATION:

Motion to continue for pursuit of a U-visa.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:
ON BEHALF OF OHS:

JUAN DE PEDRO, ESQUIRE

MIKE TRUMAN, ASSISTANT C HIEF COUNSEL

ORAL DECISION AND ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

INTRODUCTION AND JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
There is a Notice to Appear in this file dated February 24, 2009. That document
was served on the Immigration Court on March 4, 2009, thereby vesting jurisdiction with
this Court. It charges the respondent with removability under the above-referenced
section of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The respondent, through prior counsel,
has admitted the factual allegations contained in the Notice to Appear and conceded the
charge of removability. He has requested that this Court grant a continuance for him to
pursue a U-visa certification.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

May 30, 2013

File: A076-799-635

From a procedural standpoint, he concedes that he has already been granted

voluntary departure in the past and cannot apply for that type of relief at this time. That
matter was previously before Judge David Cordova. It was transferred to my docket.

reopen these proceedings that was filed following the issuance of the in absentia order.
Let the record reflect that the Notice to Appear is marked as Exhibit 1. The order
granting voluntary departure dated December 29, 2010, is marked as Exhibit 2. There
was a motion to reconsider submitted in this case on January 3, 2011, by the
Department. See Exhibit 3. There was a response filed by prior counsel with reflect to
the motion to reconsider and motion to reopen proceedings. That is marked as Exhibit
3-A. Judge Cordova granted this request to reopen through an order dated January 19,
2011. See Exhibit 3-8. The matter was rescheduled for a hearing on March 15, 2013,
through a hearing notice dated July 9, 2012. See Exhibit 4. When respondent failed to
appear for that hearing, an in absentia order was issued by Judge Cordova. See
Exhibit 5. Respondent filed a motion to reopen in this case on April 15, 2013. See
Exhibit 6. Department filed non-opposition to that request on April 18, 2013. See
Exhibit 6-A. And Judge Cordova granted this request through an order dated April 26,
2013. See Exhibit 6-B. The matter was set for a hearing on May 29, 2013 initially, and
then was reset to May 30, 2013. See Exhibit 7 and 8.
On the day of the hearing of May 30, 2013, respondent made an oral motion to
continue these proceedings. The substance of that motion is essentially supported by
materials that are in the motion to reopen and relate to the respondent's efforts to
pursue a U-visa on behalf of his son who was a victim of an attempted car-jacking in
Puerto Rico. The son is currently 12 years old, but was 11 at the time. And based on
that, respondent believes that if his son is successful in getting a U-visa, he,

A076-799-635

May 30, 2013

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

The procedural history also includes a prior in absentia order. There was a motion to

respondent, will also be eligible for that type of relief as a derivative beneficiary. The
Department has opposed the continuance for pursuit of the U-visa pursuant to the case
of Matter of Sanchez-Sosa, 25 l&N Dec. 807 (BIA 2012). That case sets forth that "in

adjudication of an alien's pending U non-immigrant visa petition, an Immigration Judge

should consider a number of factors . ..

11

The factors include the response of the

Department of Homeland Security to the motion to continue, whether the underlying

visa petition is prima facie approvable and the reason for the continuance and other
procedural factors. In this case, there is no certified U-visa pending before the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services. Therefore, I find that the Department's
opposition is not unreasonable in this case. Moreover, I note that the Department has
not been opposed to many continuances in the past in this case, and those have been
granted without objection.
Finally, I note that the criminal conduct that precipitated the decision to pursue a
U-visa occurred in September of 2012. It is now May 30, 2013. Arguably, respondent
could have pursued this avenue many months ago, given the long procedural history in
this case and the mere speculative nature of the potential relief in this case. And given
the fact that Matter of Sanchez-Sosa does not support a continuance based on this
Court's reading of it since there is no adjudication currently pending, the Court finds that
good cause has not been established for the continuance and the Court will deny that
request.
I also note that the motion is made orally on the day of the hearing, and I do not
have before me the benefit of more detailed information about the interplay between
current counsel and the prosecutor's office in Puerto Rico. I am not certain that that
would have swayed the Court to grant a continuance. But without any sense as to how

A076-799-635

May 30, 2013

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

determining whether good cause exists to continue removal proceedings to await the

quickly the Puerto Rican prosecutors would have responded to the respondent's
requests, the Court is led to believe that the response time would be speculative at this
time without more detailed information about their proposed response time. Finally, I

the United States and outside of the United States. For these reasons, I will deny the
motion to continue.
There are no other applications pending before this Court. Given that the
respondent has conceded the charge of removability, I order the respondent's removal
to Mexico on the charge contained in the Notice to Appear.
Accordingly, the following orders are entered.
ORDERS
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondent's motion to continue made orally
on May 30, 20 1 3, be, and hereby is, denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent be removed to Mexico on the
charge contained in the Notice to Appear.

Please see the next page for electronic

signature
MIMI E. TSANKOV
Immigration Judge

APPEAL DATE: July 1 , 20 1 3.

A076-799-635

May 30, 201 3

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

note that as the Department point out, respondent can pursue this type of relief both in

//s//
Immigration Judge MIMI TSANKOV
tsankovm on August 20, 2013 at 3:45 PM GMT

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

A076-799-635

May 30, 2013