You are on page 1of 4

U.S.

Department of ,Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review


Board of Immigration Appeals
Qffice ofthe Clerk
5/07 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church. J'irginia 22041

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - CHL


5701 Executive Ctr Dr., Ste 300
Charlotte, NC 28212

Name: ACHOKA, PERMINUS OTEYO

A 096-131-218

Date of this notice: 10/1/2015

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

DCrtrtL C

t1/lA)

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Pauley, Roger

Use rteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit


www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
Cite as: Perminus Oteyo Achoka, A096 131 218 (BIA Oct. 1, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

McKinney Jeremy L., Esq.


McKinney Perry & Coalter
PO BOX 1800
Greensboro, NC 27402-0000

U.S. Department of Justice

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

EecutiV{t Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A096 131 218 - Charlotte, NC

Date:

In re: PERMINUS OTEYO ACHOKA

OCT -1 201

APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Jeremy L. McKinney, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS: Scott D. Criss
Assistant Chief Counsel
CHARGE:
Notice: Sec.

237(a)(l)(B),I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(l)(B)] In the United States in violation of law (conceded)

APPLICATION: Continuance
The respondent, a native and citizen of Kenya, appeals the Immigration Judge's
December 17, 2014, decision ordering him removed. The Department of Homeland Security
opposes the appeal. The record will be remanded for further proceedings.
We review findings of fact for clear error, including credibility findings. See 8 C.F.R.
1003.l(d)(3)(i); Matter of J-Y-C-, 24 l&N Dec. 260 (BIA 2007); Matter of S-H-, 23 I&N
Dec. 462, 465-66 (BIA 2002). We review issues of law, discretion, or judgment, and all other
issues de novo. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(ii).
On appeal, the respondent maintains that the Immigration Judge should have continued the
case to await the adjudication of an Alien Relative Petition (Form 1-130) filed on the
respondent's behalf by his United States citizen wife (Resp. Brief at 5-7; Notice of Appeal; Resp.
Motion for a Velarde Continuance). Specifically,the respondent maintains that the Immigration
Judge did not adequately conduct an individualized analysis of his continuance request under
Matter of Hashmi, 24 l&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009) (Resp. Brief at 5-7). See also Takyi v. Holder,
398 F. App'x 860 (4th Cir. 2010); Assifuah v. Holder, 389 F. App'x 251 (4th Cir. 2010).
The regulations provide that the decision of an Immigration Judge shall include a finding as
to the respondent's inadmissibility or deportability, as well as contain reasons for granting or
denying the respondent's requests for relief. 8 C.F.R. 1240.12(a). "Although there is no
formal requirement for the Immigration Judge to list each factual finding, an oral decision must
accurately summarize the relevant facts, reflect the Immigration Judge's analysis of the
applicable statutes, regulations, and legal precedents, and clearly set forth the Immigration
Judge's legal conclusions." Matter ofA-P-, 22 I&N Dec. 468,477 (BIA 1999).

Cite as: Perminus Oteyo Achoka, A096 131 218 (BIA Oct. 1, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

.I

A.096 131
218
t

':

Under these circumstances, we conclude that the record is inadequate for appellate review.
Accordingly, the record will be returned to the Immigration Judge for preparation of a full
decision. Id. In remanding the case, we intimate no opinion as to the ultimate merits of the
respondent's appeal.
ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings in
accordance with this decision.

2
Cite as: Perminus Oteyo Achoka, A096 131 218 (BIA Oct. 1, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Here, the Immigration Judge did not issue a separate oral or written decision providing us
with a meaningful basis for appellate review. See Matter of S-H-, 23 I&N Dec. 462, 463-65
(BIA 2002) (stating that an Immigration Judge should include in his decision clear and complete
findings of fact that are supported by the record and are in compliance with controlling law).
Specifically, the Immigration Judge did not prepare a separate decision explaining why he denied
the respondent's motion for a continuance. Rather, the Immigration Judge issued a summary
decision ordering the respondent's removal. See Matter of A-P-, supra, at 476 (explaining that
the appellate process is best served when the oral decision is set apart from the transcript of the
proceedings such that it is readily identifiable as the Immigration Judge's complete decision);
8 C.F.R. 1240.12(b) (explaining that a summary decision is appropriate only when
removability is established by the respondent's pleadings and the respondent has sought no relief
from removal other than pre-conclusion voluntary departure under section 240B(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229c(a), or is statutorily ineligible for all forms of
relief from removal). While an explanation for the denial of a continuance is set forth in the
transcript, see Tr. at 16-22, that is insufficient.

,.
!""''

.'!!

'
. .:.
'Al';I,._

.....
I '
\

\
-'
,;., ..1,)
.

\e\,'"I

, l

In the Matter of

IMMIGRATlONCOURT
5701 EXECUTIVE CENTER DR. #400
CHARLOTTE, NC 28212
Ca.se No.: A096-131-218
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
ORDER OF THE I.MMIGRATION JUDGE

JJ'f

This is a summary of the oral decision entered. on. { 2 /, 7


This memorandum is solely for the convenience ':of the partis. If the
proceedings should be appealed or reopened, the oral decision will become
t
official opinion in the case.
[J The respondent was ordered removed from the United States to J(E N
ez in the alte111ative te,..
[ ] Respondent's application for voluntary departure was denied and
respondent was ordered removed to or in the
alternative to .
Respondent's application for voluntary departure was granted until
upon posting a bond in the amount of$
with an alternate order of removal to
Respondent's application for:
[ J Asylum was ( )granted
)denied( )withdrawn.
,;
[ ] Withholding of removal was ( )granted ( )denied
)withdrawn.
[ ] A Waiver under Section- was ( )granted ( )denied ( )withdrawn.
[ J Cancellation of removal under section 240A(a} was ( )granted ( )denied
( )withdrawn.
Respondent's application for:
Cancellation under section 240A(b)(1) was ( ) granted
denied
( ) withdrawn. If granted, it is ordered that the respondent be issued
all appropriate documents necessary to give effect to this order.
Cancellation under section 240A(b) (2} was ( )granted ( )denied
( )withdrawn. If granted it is ordered that the respondent be issued
all appropriated documents necessary to give effect to this order.
Adjustment of Status under Section
was ( }granted ( )denied
( )withdrawn. If granted it is ordered that the respondent be issued
all appropriated documents necessary to give effect to this order.
Respondent's application. of ( ) withholding of removal ( ) deferral of
removal under Article Ifpf the Covention Against Torture was
( ) grnted ( ) den ( ) withdrawn.
Respondent's status was ieicinded under section 246.
until
Respondent is admitted to the United States as a
As a condition of admission, respondent is to post a$
bond.
Respondent knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application after proper
notice.
Respondent was advised of the limitation on discretionary relief for
failure to appear as ordered in the Immigration Judge's oral decision.
Proceedings were
terminated.
'
'
Other:
c
Date: Dec 17, 2014

YA .

EA.JIED.

Appeal: Waive Appeal Due,

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

ACHOKA, PERMINUS OTEYO


Respondent

.. ,{:j

7, / is-

Immigration Judge

{i

t;

j,!

'' :,1,

...... . .: :.,

'i"t,\..

:,:,!tjl i

You might also like