Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Department of ,Justice
A 096-131-218
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
Date:
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)
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)
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
YA .
EA.JIED.
.. ,{:j
7, / is-
Immigration Judge
{i
t;
j,!
'' :,1,
...... . .: :.,
'i"t,\..
:,:,!tjl i