U.S.

Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals

Office of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 20530

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - MIA

Name: LUGO DE ESPERANCE, MARIA ...

A 200-481-736

Date of this notice: 2/18/2015

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

Don.JtL caAAJ
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members:
Guendelsberger, John

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index
Cite as: Maria Antonia Lugo de Esperance, A200 481 736 (BIA Feb. 18, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

333 South Miami Ave., Suite 200

Miami, FL 33130

U.S. Department of Justice

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Executive 0ffice for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 20530

Miami, FL

FEB

1 S 2015

File:

A200 481 736

In re:

MARIA ANTONIA LUGO DE ESPERANCE a.k.a. Maria Lugo De Leon

Date:

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:
ON BEHALF OF DHS:

Pro se

Crystal T. Lasseur
Assistant Chief Counsel

APPLICATION: Temporary protected status

The respondent, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, appeals from the
Immigration Judge's decision dated June 13, 2013, ordering her removal from the United States.
The record will be remanded.
The Board defers to the factual findings of an Immigration Judge, unless they are clearly
erroneous, but it retains independent judgment and discretion, subject to applicable governing
standards, regarding pure questions of law and the application of a particular standard of law to
those factS. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i), (ii).
In the Notice of Appeal (EOIR Form-26), the respondent states that she is married to a

citizen of Haiti, and she is eligible for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). She presumptively
requests that the Immigration Judge review, de novo, the August 25, 2011, decision from the
Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
("USCIS") denying her TPS application

(Exh. 1; Tr. at 14).

An applicant for TPS may seek de novo review by an Immigration Judge in removal

proceedings. See Matter of Ismael Lopez-Aldana, 25 l&N Dec. 49 (BIA 2009); see also Matter
of Figueroa, 25 l&N Dec. 596 (BIA 2011); Matter ofHenriquez Rivera, 25 I&N Dec. 575 (BIA
2011); Matter of Barrientos, 24 l&N Dec. 100 (BIA 2007). The respondent did not request that
the Immigration Judge review, de novo, the denial of her TPS application. However, the
respondent was pro se. We will, in the exercise of discretion, remand these proceedings for the
Immigration Judge to review the application.

Cite as: Maria Antonia Lugo de Esperance, A200 481 736 (BIA Feb. 18, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

APPEAL

A200 481 736

...

Accordingly, the following order will be ntered.

ORDER:

The record is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing

opinion.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Cite as: Maria Antonia Lugo de Esperance, A200 481 736 (BIA Feb. 18, 2015)

(---.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
MIAMI, FLORIDA

In the Matter of

MARIA ANTONIA LUGO DE ESPERANCE

RESPONDENT

)
)
)

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

CHARGES:

Section 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act - a

nonimmigrant visitor who remained in the United States longer than
authorized.

APPLICATIONS:

None.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: PRO SE

ON BEHALF OF OHS: CRYSTAL LASSEUR

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

Respondent is an adult, married female, a native and citizen of the
Dominican Republic. She was admitted to the United States on January 27, 2010, on a
six month nonimmigrant visitor's visa that was apparently extended for an additional six
months beyond that date not to exceed January 27, 2011. She remained in the United
States longer than permitted. During the course of her status she filed an application for
protected status that was denied on August 25, 2011, by United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

June 13, 2013

File: A200-481-736

"--'

The respondent was issued a Notice to Appear on October 16, 2012, and
her master calendar hearing began on January 10, 2013, in which she was advised as

legal aid list and adjournment to May 23 of 2013 to see if she could come back before
the Court with counsel. At the second master calendar hearing after having made
inquiries at the Catholic Charity services, she indicated that she was in consultation with
an attorney who would be willing to represent her if the Court granted her an additional
continuance. That was granted to January 13 of 2013. At this hearing today she has
indicated she is in touch with that particular individual and the association on the legal
aid list and they were not able to represent her. She was sworn in and she admitted the
six allegations contained in the Notice to Appear and based on those admissions, the
Court found that she was subject to removal as a nonimmigrant visitor who has
remained longer than permitted. Removal is established by clear and convincing
evidence. See Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276 (1966).
Thereafter, the respondent designated the Dominican Republic as the
country of removal should that become necessary. She does not wish to return to the
Dominican Republic because it has been 15 years since she has resided in her country.
She had immigrated and married a Haitian national and lived in Haiti up until the time of
the earthquake. She indicated that she came to the United States because of the
devastation in her husband's country, although he has remained there. They apparently
have not had any children together. But a stepchild, presumably her husband's child
from another relationship, traveled with her to the United States and that individual may
have been granted temporary protected status. The respondent did not wish to qualify
for voluntary departure. The Court extensively question her to suggest that she could
avoid the stigma of an order of removal and deportation if she would be willing to pay for

A200-481-736

June 13, 2013

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

to the nature and purpose of these proceedings, her rights to counsel, and provided a

(.

her own transportation costs and leave the United States and go to whatever country
she would choose. She did not wish to qualify for this relief so that was deemed

No other relief pending before the Cour t or which the respondent can
establish prima facie eligibility, the following orders are hereby entered.
ORDER
The respondent is found subject to removal based on the charge
contained in the Notice to Appear.
Further order, the respondent is ordered removed from the United States
to the Dominican Republic.

J. DANIEL DOWELL
Immigration Judge

A200-481-736

June 13, 2013

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

abandoned.

CERTIFICATE PAGE

I hereby certify that the attached proceeding before JUDGE J. DANIEL

MARIA ANTONIA LUGO DE ESPERANCE

A200-481-736

MIAMI, FLORIDA

was held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of
the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

JONATHAN DOUGLAS (Transcriber)

DEPOSITION SERVICES, lnc.-2
August 19, 2013
(Completion Date)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

DOWELL, in the matter of: