Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 274 views

    Joy Atila Litaba, A200 224 355 (BIA Sept. 11, 2012)

    Uploaded by

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC
    in this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed the immigration judge's denial of a continuance and remanded the case to give the respondent a meaningful opportunity to consult with counsel and to seek relief from removal. The decision was written by Member Elise Manuel.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Joy Atila Litaba, A200 224 355 (BIA Sept. 11, 2012)

    Uploaded by

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC
    274 views7 pages
    in this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed the immigration judge's denial of a continuance and remanded the case to give the respondent a meaningful opportunity to consult with counsel and to seek relief from removal. The decision was written by Member Elise Manuel.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    in this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed the immigration judge's denial of a continuance and remanded the case to give the respondent a meaningful opportunity to consult with counsel and to seek relief from removal. The decision was written by Member Elise Manuel.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    274 views7 pages

    Joy Atila Litaba, A200 224 355 (BIA Sept. 11, 2012)

    Uploaded by

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC
    in this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed the immigration judge's denial of a continuance and remanded the case to give the respondent a meaningful opportunity to consult with counsel and to seek relief from removal. The decision was written by Member Elise Manuel.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 7
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The case documents the removal proceedings and appeal of Joy Atila Litaba, a citizen of Kenya. The Board of Immigration Appeals remanded the case back to the Immigration Court to allow Litaba more time to consult with her attorney and seek relief from removal.

    The case involves removal proceedings against Joy Atila Litaba, a citizen of Kenya, for overstaying her visa in the United States.

    The Immigration Judge denied Litaba's request for a continuance and ordered her removed from the United States for overstaying her visa. The judge determined that Litaba's attorney had adequate time to consult with her client about potential relief.

    {J.S.

    Department of Justice
    Executive Office for Immigration Review

    Board ofImmigration Appeals Office of the Clerk


    5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 22041

    REGINA W. NJOGU, ESQUIRE 3537 Spencerville Road, Suite 4 Burtonsville, MD 20866

    DHSIICE Office of Chief Counsel - DAL 125 E. John Carpenter Fwy, ste. 500 Irving, TX 75062-2324

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

    Name: LITABA, JOY ATILA

    A 200-224-355

    Date of this notice: 9/11/2012

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

    DorutLCwvu
    Donna Carr Chief Clerk Enclosure
    Panel Members: Manuel, Elise L.

    lucasd

    Userteam: Docket

    Cite as: Joy Atila Litaba, A200 224 355 (BIA Sept. 11, 2012)

    U.S. Depmmena of Justice


    Executive Office for Immigration Review
    Falls Church, Vrrginia 22041

    Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

    File: A200 224 355- Haskell, TX1 hue: JOY ATILALITABA IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:

    Date:

    . SE P 1 ! 2012

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

    Regina W. Njogu, Esquire

    The respondent, a native and citizen of Kenya, appeals the decision of the Immigration Judge, dated April 11, 2012, denying her request for a continuance and ordering her removal from the United States. Under the particular circumstances in this case, which include the relative youth of the respondent/ her articulated desire for additional time to seek counsel, counsel's appearance by telephone and request for additional time to meaningfully consult with the respondent, and the absence from the record of a Notice ofAppearance as Representative Before the Immigration Court (Form EOIR-28), we find that a remand of this matter is warranted to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to consult with counsel and to seek relief from removal. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.29, 1240.6; Matter ofC-B-, 25 I&N Dec. 888 (BIA 2012). Accordingly, the following order is entered. ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Court for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision.

    FOR THE BOARD

    Proceedings before the Immigration Judge in this matter were completed in Haskell, Texas, where the case was docketed for hearing (see OPPM No. 04-06) and where the hearing notice directed the respondent to appear via video teleconference pursuant to section 240(b)(2)(A)(ili) of the Act. The Immigration Judge conducted the hearing there remotely from Dallas, Texas. The NTA lists the respondent's birthdate as Aprill 0, 1993, and a 2002 entry. Thus, it appears she entered at 9 years old, and is currently 19. On June 15, 2012, subsequent to the Immigration Judge's decision in this case, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that certain young people, who are low law enforcement priorities, will be eligtble to receive deferred action. The respondent may be eligible to seek deferred action. Information regarding DHS' Deferred Action Process for Young People Who are Low Enforcement Priorities may be obtained at the following DHS websites: USCIS at www.uscis.gov, and ICE at www.ice.gov. Individuals can also call USCIS' hotline at 1-800-375-5283 or ICE's hotline at 1-888-351-4024.
    Cite as: Joy Atila Litaba, A200 224 355 (BIA Sept. 11, 2012)
    2

    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRAT ION REVIEW UNITED STATES IMMIGRAT.ION COURT DALLAS, TEXAS

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

    File:

    A200-224-355

    April 11, 2012

    In the Matter of

    JOY ATILA LITABA RESPONDENT

    IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

    .
    CHARGES: Section 237 (a) (1) (B) of the Act.

    APPLICATIONS:

    ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: REGINA NJOGU, ESQ. 3537 Spencerville Road, Suite 4 Burtonsville, Maryland 20866 . ON B~HALF OF DHS: HEID I GRAHAM , ESQ. Assistant Chief Counsel United States Department of Homeland Security Office of the Chief Counsel 125 E. John Carpente r Freeway, Suite 500 Irving, Texas 75062

    DECISION AND ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION COURT Respondent is a native and citizen of Kenya. The present

    action commenced when the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear dated February 12, 2012. The Notice was

    0
    served on respondent on February 28, 2012 [Exhibit 1]. In the

    Notice to Appear, the Department alleged that respondent was subject to removal from the United States as a consequence of a violation of Section 237(a) (1) (B) of the Act, in that she was admitted to the United States at Houston, Texas, on or about December 8, 2002, as a non-immigrant B-2 visa, with authorization to remain in the United States for a temporary period not to exceed June 7, 2003. According t o the Department,

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

    respondent remained in the United States beyond June 7, 2003, without authorization from either the Immigration and Naturalization Service or its successor agency, the Department of Homeland Security. As noted above, the Department alleged

    that these acts were a violation of Section 237(a) (1) (B) of the Act (the ''overstay" provisions of Section 237). Respondent first
    appea~ed

    in Court on March 13, 2012 .

    .At that time, respondent asked for time to consult . with an attorney. The Court then set the matter for hearing on At that time, respondent again asked for Respondent's present

    March 20, 2012 .

    additional time to speak with an attorney.

    counsel entered the case on March 26, 2012, through a properly formatted Form EOIR-28. On March 28, 2012, respondent's counsel The matter was reset to

    asked for attorney preparation time. April 4, 2012.

    On April 4, 2012, respondent's attorney was not The matter was

    available for hearing due to a family emergency. reset for hearing on April 11, 2012.

    A200-224-355

    April 11, 2012

    At the Master Calendar hearing conducted on April 11, 2012, respondent admitt ed the four factual allegations contained in the Notice to Appear and conceded the charge of removability

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

    under Section 237(a) (1) (B) of the Act.

    Based on respondent's

    admissions, the Court sustained the charge of removability as set forth above. Respondent declined to designate a country of

    removal and the Court designated Kenya as t he country of .nativity and citizenship. Respondent, through counsel,

    expressed that she had no fear of returning to Kenya. The Court on several occasions in the course of the April 11, 2012 hearing asked respondent's counsel to designate relief. Respondent's counsel asked for a continuance to ''explore relief" with her client. The Court denied that motion, because

    respondent's counsel has been attorney of record in this case since March 26, and, in the Court's opinion, had more than ample time to consult with her client relating to relief. Respondent's counsel then indicated that she planned to seek "prosecutorial discretion". This is not a remedy that is before Prosecutorial

    or within the jurisdiction of this Court.

    discretion is an ongoing initiative being handled by the United States Department of Homeland Security completely beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. Respondent's counsel was asked one

    final time relating to any relief she intended to proceed with before the Court. Respondent's counsel declined to seek any I n the absence of any relief

    relief before the Court.

    A200-224-355

    April 11 , 2012

    ' '

    applications, including voluntary departure, the Court has no choice but issue the following orders. ORDER

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

    IT IS ORDERED that the single charge of removability unde r Section 237(a) (1) (B) of the Act is proven by c lear and convincing evidence and, therefore, respondent is subject to removal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent, having been given the opportunity to file an application for relief and declining to do so and, having been found subject to remova l from the United States, be and is hereby ordered removed from the Un ited States to Kenya based on the charges contai ned in the Notice to Appear. Dallas, Texas, this 11th day of April, 20 12.

    A200-224-355

    April 11, 2 012

    '

    CERTIFICATE PAGE I hereby certify that the attached proceeding before JUDGE JAMES NUGENT, in the matter of:

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

    JOY ATILA LITABA A200-224-355 DALLAS, TEXAS is an accurate , verbatim transcript of the recording as provided

    by the Executive Office .for Immigration Review and that this is


    the original transcript thereof for the file of the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

    : : .. : . ..: .: . . :... . ... .: .....


    ~

    . . ... . . . . ..

    ..

    . .... . ..... ....

    :.:::.. .. . :

    ..

    LINDA DOCK (Transcriber) FREE STATE REPORTING , Inc. MAY 24, 2012 (Completion Date)

    You might also like