Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board ofImmigration Appeals
Office of the Clerk
5/07 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 2204/
A 200-006-948
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Dowu... c
Sincerely,
t1AA)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Holiona, Hope Malia
Grant, Edward R.
Guendelsberger, John
Userteam: Docket
Date:
AUG 19 20f5
APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Burhan Nomani, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF OHS: Hana Sato
Assistant Chief Counsel
APPLICATION: Reopening
The respondent, a native and citizen of India, was ordered removed in absentia on
February 26, 2014. On March 26, 2014, the respondent filed a motion to reopen proceedings.
The Immigration Judge denied that motion on May 16, 2014, and the respondent filed the instant
appeal. The appeal will be sustained, the in absentia order will be vacated, proceedings will be
reopened, and the record will be remanded.
Upon de novo review of the record and in light of the totality of circumstances presented in
this case, we conclude that the respondent demonstrated that reopening is warranted. See
sections 240(b)(5)(C)(i), (e)(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A.
1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), (e)(I). We will therefore sustain the respondent's appeal and remand the
record for further proceedings.
ORDER: The respondent's appeal is sustained, the in absentia order is vacated, proceedings
are reopened and the record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings and
for the entry of a new decision.
Cite as: Simran Dholasania, A200 006 948 (BIA Aug. 19, 2015)
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
--
IN THE MATTER OF
DHOLASANIA, SIMRAN
FILE A 200-006-948
OTHER:
ERK
MIGRATION COURT
FF
File Number:
Al00-006-948
Simran DHOLASANIA,
Respondent.
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
CHARGE:
APPLICATION:
Motion to Reopen
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
Burhan Nomani
Burhan Nomani & Associates, P.C.
6161 Savoy Drive, Suite 1000
Houston, Texas 77036
ON BEHALF OF ICE
Hana Sato, Esq.
Assistant Chief Counsel
1000 Second Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98104
absentia.
On March 26, 2014, Respondent timely filed a motion to reopen removal proeedings,
asserting that exceptional circumstances beyond her control prevented her from traveling to
Washington and attending her hearing. Specifically, Respondent argues that because she did not
have identification documents, she was unable to travel by air or bus to attend her hearing. She
further asserts that she was unable to make any safe arrangements to travel by car from Texas to
Seattle. See Respondent's Motion to Reopen (filed Mar. 26, 2014). On April 4, 2014, the
Department filed its opposition to Respondent's motion. For the following reasons, the Court
denies Respondent's motion to reopen these proceedings.
. ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's motion to reopen and rescind the in absentia
order of removal is DENIED.
})b }Ji
I
Date I
A200-006-948
('
O wiY 4.-,-to
')
')
v
.
Paul A. DeFonzo
Immigration Judge
provided a reasonable explanation as to why she was unable to travel from Texas to Washington
when she had previously traveled by bus from Washington to Texas without issue. See id at 1-2;
see also Maroufi v. INS, 772 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1985) ("The BIA is required to accept as true the
facts stated in an alien's affidavit in ruling upon his motion to reopen unless it finds those facts to
be 'inherently unbelievable."'). Similarly, Respondent has provided nothing more than a cursory
statement that traveling by car could not have been arranged with either her mother or her uncle.
See id. Ultimately, Respondent has failed to establish that these obstacles constitute exceptional
circumstances as contemplated by section 240(e)(I) or that they result from compelling
circumstances beyond Respondent's control. IN A 240(e)(I). The Court finds that Respondent
has failed to meet the standard for a motion to reopen and will therefore deny Respondent's
motion.