Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 452 views

    G-M-V-M-, AXXX XXX 957 (BIA Sept. 28, 2017)

    Uploaded by

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC
    In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed an immigration judge’s decision denying the respondent’s motion to reopen for failure to submit the $110 filing fee. The Board held that that no fee was required because the motion related to the respondent’s asylum application. The decision was issued by Member Ellen Liebowitz and was joined by Member Hugh Mullane and Member Michael Creppy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G-M-V-M-, AXXX XXX 957 (BIA Sept. 28, 2017)

    Uploaded by

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC
    452 views4 pages
    In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed an immigration judge’s decision denying the respondent’s motion to reopen for failure to submit the $110 filing fee. The Board held that that no fee was required because the motion related to the respondent’s asylum application. The decision was issued by Member Ellen Liebowitz and was joined by Member Hugh Mullane and Member Michael Creppy.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    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    In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed an immigration judge’s decision denying the respondent’s motion to reopen for failure to submit the $110 filing fee. The Board held that that no fee was required because the motion related to the respondent’s asylum application. The decision was issued by Member Ellen Liebowitz and was joined by Member Hugh Mullane and Member Michael Creppy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    452 views4 pages

    G-M-V-M-, AXXX XXX 957 (BIA Sept. 28, 2017)

    Uploaded by

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC
    In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed an immigration judge’s decision denying the respondent’s motion to reopen for failure to submit the $110 filing fee. The Board held that that no fee was required because the motion related to the respondent’s asylum application. The decision was issued by Member Ellen Liebowitz and was joined by Member Hugh Mullane and Member Michael Creppy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The Board of Immigration Appeals remanded the case back to the Immigration Court for further consideration of the respondent's motion to reopen her case.

    The Immigration Judge initially denied the respondent's motion to reopen her case, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction because no filing fee was paid.

    The Board of Immigration Appeals determined that no filing fee was required for the respondent's motion to reopen and remanded the case back to the Immigration Court.

    U.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

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


    Wynn-Stewart, Angela OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - ATL
    Wynn Law Office, LLC 180 Ted Turner Dr., SW, Ste 332
    P.O. Box 877 Atlanta, GA 30303
    Flagler Beach, FL 32136

    Name: V -M , G ... A 957

    Date of this notice: 9/28/2017

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

    Sincerely,

    Cynthia L. Crosby
    Deputy Chief Clerk

    Enclosure

    Panel Members:
    Liebowitz, Ellen C
    Creppy, Michael J.
    Mullane, Hugh G.

    Userteam: Docket

    For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit


    www.irac.net/unpublished/index

    Cite as: G-M-V-M-, AXXX XXX 957 (BIA Sept. 28, 2017)
    U.S. Department of Justice Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
    Exeutive
    -
    Office for Immigration Review
    \

    Falls fhurch, Virginia 22041

    File: 957 - Atlanta, GA Date:


    SEP 28 1817
    In re: G M V -M

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


    IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

    APPEAL

    ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Angela Wynn-Stewart, Esquire

    ON BEHALF OF OHS: Kelley Fowler


    Assistant Chief Counsel

    APPLICATION: Motion to reopen

    The respondent, a native and citizen of Guatemala, appeals the Immigration Judge's
    March 31, 2017, decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Section 240(c)(7)
    of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7) (2017); 8 C.F.R. 1003.23(b)(l),
    (3) (2017). The Immigration Judge previously issued a removal order dated February 28, 2017.
    In this decision, the Immigration Judge found the respondent's application for asylum, withholding
    of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture abandoned for failing to file the
    application within the time deadline set by the Immigration Judge. The Department of Homeland
    Security ("OHS") opposes the respondent's appeal. The appeal will be sustained, and the record
    will be remanded.

    We review findings of fact determined by an Immigration Judge, including credibility findings,


    under a "clearly erroneous" standard. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i). We review questions of law,
    discretion, and judgment, and all other issues in appeals from decisions of Immigration Judges de
    novo. 8 C.F.R 1003.l(d)(3)(ii).

    The Immigration Judge determined that the Immigration Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the
    respondent's motion to reopen as she had failed to pay the requisite filing fee, and the exceptions
    for filing such a fee were not applicable (U at 1). According to 8 C.F.R. 1003.24(b)(2)(i), no
    filing fee is required for a motion to reopen that is based exclusively on an application for relief
    that does not require a fee. There is no filing fee requirement for applications for asylum,
    withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R.
    103.7, 1003.24(a).

    As the underlying application for relief in this matter requires no filing fee, the Immigration
    Court had jurisdiction to consider the motion to reopen. The OHS contends that the provisions of
    8 C.F.R. 1003.24(b)(2)(i) are not applicable as the respondent is seeking to extend the filing
    deadline for her asylum application and, therefore, the motion does not exclusively concern an
    application that does not require a filing fee (OHS Br. at 1 n.l). We are unpersuaded by thi
    argument. The question raised in the motion to reopen is whether the Immigration Court received
    the respondent's asylum application prior to the deadline set by the Immigration Judge, and does
    not argue for an extension of the deadline. See Motion To Reopen (March 30, 2017), items 3-7.
    Cite as: G-M-V-M-, AXXX XXX 957 (BIA Sept. 28, 2017)
    - 957

    As the Immigration Judge did not reach the merits of the motion to reopen, we will remand for
    further proceedings (U at 1; Respondent's Br. at 8, item F; OHS Br. at 2). The Board, by issuing
    this remand, expresses no opinion on the final outcome of this matter.

    Accordingly, the following orders will be entered.

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


    ORDER: The respondent's appeal is sustained, and the Immigration Judge's March 31, 2017,
    decision is vacated.

    FURTHER 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.

    Cite as: G-M-V-M-, AXXX XXX 957 (BIA Sept. 28, 2017)
    T
    , ,
    J

    United States Department of Justice


    Executive Office of Immigration Review
    United States Immigration Court
    Atlanta, Georgia

    In Re: G M. V -M Case No. 957

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


    Order Denying Motion to Re-Open

    This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Respondent's March 30, 2017
    Motion to Re-Open. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion will be Denied.

    The Court is without jurisdiction to hear the current Motion to Re-Open because
    no filing fee has been paid. 8 C.F.R. 1003.23(b)( 1)(ii) specifies that a motion "must be
    filed in duplicate with the Immigration Court, accompanied by a fee receipt."(emphasis
    supplied). A review of the record reveals that no filing fee was paid. None of the
    exceptions allowing for the Motion to Re-Open to be filed without a filing fee set forth in
    8 C.F.R. 1003.24(b)(2) apply in this case. Therefore a filing fee is required. The Motion
    to Re-Open was improvidently filed.

    Additionally, there is no sua sponte basis upon which to re-open the proceedings.

    The automatic stay of removal is vacated.

    Micha P. Baird
    United States Immigration Judge

    U.S. Immigration Court

    Atlanta, Georgia
    Cerrfflcate of Servk:e

    ?4fii h- Ki-
    This document was served by:Ma11fH Per8onal Svc

    Date. ID
    u CU<: ,

    You might also like