F-M-A-, AXXX XXX 656 (BIA July 13, 2015)
Uploaded by
Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCF-M-A-, AXXX XXX 656 (BIA July 13, 2015)
Uploaded by
Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCU.S.
Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board ofImmigration Appeals
Office of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 20530
DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - DET
333 Mt. Elliott St., Rm. 204
Detroit, Ml 48207
Name:M-F-
Date of this notice: 7/13/2015
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Holmes, David 8.
Use rteam: Docket
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit
www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
Cite as: F-M-A-, AXXX XXX 656 (BIA July 13, 2015)
Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net
Heilbrun, Sarah Kate
HALEYNELSON & HEILBRUN LLP
436 14TH STREET
SUITE 716
OAKLAND, CA 94612
U.S. Department of Justice
Ee Office for Immigration Review
Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Falls Church, Virginia 20530
File: 656 - Detroit, MI
Date:
JUL 1 S 2015
Inre:
MOTION
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Sarah Kate Heilbrun, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS:
Jason A Ritter
Assistant Chief Counsel
APPLICATION: Reopening
This case was last before the Board on December 19, 2012, when we issued a decision
dismissing the respondent's appeal from the Immigration Judge's decision denying her requests
for asylum, 1 withholding of removal to Guatemala (her country of citizenship), and protection
under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). 2
On April 6, 2015, the respondent filed a motion to reopen advancing multiple claims of
ineffective assistance by several attorneys, 3 and seeking an opportunity to apply for special rule
cancellation of removal under section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American
Relief Act (NACARA), Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2193, 2196, amended by Pub. L. No.
105-139, 111 Stat. 2644 (1997) as a derivative spousal applicant. See Motion to Reopen
(Motion). The DHS opposes this motion. In a supplemental filing, the respondent articulates
additional claims of ineffective assistance by her former attorneys. She also wishes to apply for
asylum in her own right based on persecution claims pertaining to her, which were neither
developed nor presented at her hearing by one of her former attorneys. 4 See Supplement to
fore the Immigration Judge, the respondent's husband
led an application for asylum listing her, and their son, as his derivative beneficiaries. See I.J. at 4; Recor
Group Exh. 3, Tabs G and H.
"'lr.. ,.
On February 18, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the
petitions for review filed regarding this Board decision. See Matias v. Holder, Docket "Nos. 133033/13-3034/13-3035" (6th Cir. 2014); Motion to Reopen, Tab Il.
In this filing, current counsel includes herself among the attorneys who provided the
respondent with ineffective assistance. See Motion at 10-11, 20, 25-26; Tab D.
3
It is now claimed that in 1982, the respondent was raped by government soldiers, and that in
1986 two of her and her husband's children (respectively aged 1 and 3 years) were murdered by
(continued... )
Cite as: F-M-A-, AXXX XXX 656 (BIA July 13, 2015)
Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
656
/Motion to Reopen (Supplement) filed June 19, 2015, at 7-13; Tabs A-N. In addition, the
respondent claims new reasons for having a well-founded fear of persecution in her homeland.
Supplement at 12-13. The OHS has not responded to this particular filing.
Regarding reopening, we have considered the claims advanced, the evidence presented, and
the positions of the parties. Based on the totality of the circumstances presented, the
respondent's removal proceedings are reopened pursuant to 8 C.F.R 1003.2(a), and the record
is remanded for further consideration of her eligibility for relief ftom removal, including but not
limited to relief under section 203 of the NACARA, asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
protection. On remand, the parties may present additional testimony and evidence. The burden
rests with the respondent to demonstrate her eligibility for the relief sought. 8 C.F.R.
1240.8(d) and 1240.64(a). In remanding, we express no opinion as to the ultimate
disposition of this case. On remand, the respondent may present her request to consolidate her
case with the cases of her husband and son.
Accordingly, the following orders are entered.
ORDER: The respondent's removal proceedings are reopened sua sponte.
FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with
the foregoing opinion and entry of a new decision.
FOR THE BOARD
(... continued)
government soldiers. It is also asserted that in 1997, the respondent and her son were beaten by
civil patrolmen when they refused to reveal her husband's whereabouts, and that in 1998, their
son was beaten and nearly killed by civil patrolmen. See Supplement at 7-13; Tabs A-C
(updated declarations), and Tab F (death certificates listing the cause of death of the respondent's
two minor children as "homicide").
2
Cite as: F-M-A-, AXXX XXX 656 (BIA July 13, 2015)
Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net
In addition, the respondent has filed a motion requesting consolidation of her motion to
reopen with the individual motions to reopen concurrently filed by her husband
, whose case arises in separate deportation proceedings, and her son
whose case arises in removal proceedings. The motion to consolidate will be
denied.
