Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • Muhammad Salman Rais, A079 692 636 (BIA Jun. 20, 2012)

    Încărcat de

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC
    268 vizualizări2 pagini
    In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied a motion to reopen to seek adjustment of status because the respondent was an “arriving alien” and jurisdiction over his application rested with USCIS. The Board noted that USCIS had previously denied the respondent’s application due to the existence of an outstanding removal order, but stated that the denial was erroneous and encouraged the respondent to submit a motion to reconsider with USCIS. The decision was written by Member David Holmes.

    Drepturi de autor

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formate disponibile

    PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied a motion to reopen to seek adjustment of status because the respondent was an “arriving alien” and jurisdiction over his application rested with USCIS. The Board noted that USCIS had previously denied the respondent’s application due to the existence of an outstanding removal order, but stated that the denial was erroneous and encouraged the respondent to submit a motion to reconsider with USCIS. The decision was written by Member David Holmes.

    Drepturi de autor:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Descărcați ca PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    268 vizualizări2 pagini

    Muhammad Salman Rais, A079 692 636 (BIA Jun. 20, 2012)

    Încărcat de

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC
    In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied a motion to reopen to seek adjustment of status because the respondent was an “arriving alien” and jurisdiction over his application rested with USCIS. The Board noted that USCIS had previously denied the respondent’s application due to the existence of an outstanding removal order, but stated that the denial was erroneous and encouraged the respondent to submit a motion to reconsider with USCIS. The decision was written by Member David Holmes.

    Drepturi de autor:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Descărcați ca PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 2

    U.S.

    Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

    Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk


    5107 leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church. Virgi11ia 22041

    Kaplovitz, Ronald E. Kaplovitz & Associates, P .C. 2057 Orchard Lake Road Sylvan Lake, Ml 48320-0000

    OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - DET 333 Mt. Elliott St., Rm. 204 Detroit, Ml 48207

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

    Name: RAIS, MUHAMMAD SALMAN

    A079-692-636

    Date of this notice: 6/20/2012

    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 B.

    For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

    Cite as: Muhammad Salman Rais, A079 692 636 (BIA Jun. 20, 2012)

    'u.s. Department of Justice


    Executive Office for Immigration Review Falls Church, Virginia 2204 l

    Decision of the Board oflmmigration Appeals

    File:

    A079 692 636 - Detroit, MI

    Date:

    !JUN .2 0 2012

    In re: MUHAMMAD SALMAN RAIS a.k.a. Muahmmad Salman Rais

    IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS MOTION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Ronald Kaplovitz, Esquire ON BEHALF OF DHS: Tara L. Harris Assistant Chief Counsel

    Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

    ORDER: On March 9, 2012, the respondent, who is a native and citizen of Pakistan, filed a timely motion to reopen, following the Board's February 13, 2012, final order. The Department of Homeland Security (the "DHS") opposes the motion, which will be denied. We determined on February 13, 2012, that the Immigration Judge properly concluded that she lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the respondent's adjustment of status application, because he is an arriving alien and does not fall under the exception contained at 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)( l ) and 1245.2(a)(l)(ii). Rather, jurisdiction over the respondent's application is with the DHS, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The respondent presents evidence that he has sought adjustment of status with the USCIS, since he is an arriving alien, but that on February 24, 2012, his adjustment application was denied on the basis that there is an outstanding order of removal. The motion states that the respondent intends to file a motion to reconsider with the USCIS (Respondent's Mot. at 4; DHS Opp at 2). The USCIS decision appears to be in error, as the DHS essentially acknowledges in response to the motion (DHS Opp. at 1). The respondent is an arriving removal order. 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)( l ); see also Matter o/Yauri, 25 l&N Dec. 103, 107 (BIA 2009). alien, and adjudication of the adjustment application may proceed regardless of the outstanding

    We encourage the respondent to proceed with a motion to reconsider before the USCIS, as we have no authority to review the USCIS decision. We are not persuaded that reopening of these proceedings is necessary at this juncture. The respondent has not indicated that the OHS is currently seeking enforcement of the removal order. However, if the need for a stay arises while his request for reconsideration is pending, he may seek such a stay from the OHS. 1241.6(a). Accordingly, given the rec rd present 8 C.F.R. 24 l .6(a), before us, the pending motion is denied.
    -

    FOR THE BOARD

    Cite as: Muhammad Salman Rais, A079 692 636 (BIA Jun. 20, 2012)

    S-ar putea să vă placă și