0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
945 vizualizări6 pagini
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) sustained an interlocutory appeal filed by the Department of Homeland Security and vacated an immigration judge’s decision requiring the production of documents by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) relating to activities bearing on the respondent’s eligibility for adjustment of status. The Board held that the subpoenas were premature and overbroad, and found that the immigration judge did not sufficiently explain why the documents sought were “essential” to the case under 8 C.F.R. 1003.35(b). The decision was written by Member Michael Creppy and joined by Member Garry Malphrus and Member Hugh Mullane.
Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) sustained an interlocutory appeal filed by the Department of Homeland Security and vacated an immigration judge’s decision requiring the production of documents by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) relating to activities bearing on the respondent’s eligibility for adjustment of status. The Board held that the subpoenas were premature and overbroad, and found that the immigration judge did not sufficiently explain why the documents sought were “essential” to the case under 8 C.F.R. 1003.35(b). The decision was written by Member Michael Creppy and joined by Member Garry Malphrus and Member Hugh Mullane.
Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) sustained an interlocutory appeal filed by the Department of Homeland Security and vacated an immigration judge’s decision requiring the production of documents by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) relating to activities bearing on the respondent’s eligibility for adjustment of status. The Board held that the subpoenas were premature and overbroad, and found that the immigration judge did not sufficiently explain why the documents sought were “essential” to the case under 8 C.F.R. 1003.35(b). The decision was written by Member Michael Creppy and joined by Member Garry Malphrus and Member Hugh Mullane.
Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
New York, NY 10279 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Ofce fr Iigation Review Board of Immigation Appeals Ofce of the Chief Clerk 5107 Leesburg Pike, S11ite 2000 Falls Church, Vrinia 20530 OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel - NEW P.O. Box 1898 Newark, NJ 07101 Name: QATANANI, MOHAMMAD M. A 076-133-969 Riders: 076-123-694 076-123-695 076-123-696 076-123-697 Date of this Notice: 5/13/2014 Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case. Enclosure Panel Members: Creppy, Michael J. Malphrus, Garry D. Mullane, Hugh Sincerely, Donna Carr Chief Clerk For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished I m m i g r a n t
&
R e f u g e e
A p p e l l a t e
C e n t e r
|
w w w . i r a c . n e t Cite as: Mohammad M. Qatanani, A076 133 969 (BIA May 13, 2014) ! ' U.S. Deparment of Justce Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review Decision of the Board of Immigation Appeals Falls Chuch, Virginia 20530 Files: A076 133 969 - Newark, NJ A076 123 694 A076 123 695 A076 123 696 A076 123 697 In re: MOHAMD M. OATANANI SUMAIA M. ABUHOUD OMAR M. OATAANI AHMAD M. OATAANI ISRA M. OAT AAI IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Date: ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: Claudia Slovinsky, Esquire ON BEHALF OF DHS: Jaes T. Dehn Associate Lega Advisor MAY l 3 2014 The Depament of Homeland Secuty ("DRS") fled a interlocutory appeal fom the Immigation Judge's decision dated Januay 22, 2013, which granted the respondents' 1 motion fr subpoenas to the Newark, New Jersey Custodian of Records fr both the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and the United States Customs and Immigration Enfrcement ("ICE"), fr the production of cerain documents. The respondents oppose the appeal. On March 3, 2014, a three-member panel of the Boad heard oral argument fom the paies. The DHS's interlocutory appeal will be sustained and the Immigration Judge's decision will be vacated. Although this Boad does not ordinaily entertain interocutory appeals, we have rled on the merts of interlocutory appeals where we deemed it necessay to address import jwisdictional questions regading the administation of the immigration laws, or to corect recur ing problems in the handling of caes by Immigation Judges. See e.g., Matter of Guevara, 20 I&N Dec. 238 (BIA 1990, 1991); Matter of Dobere, 20 I&N Dec. 188 (BIA 1990). Since this mater involves a imporat jwsdictional question regading the administation of the imigation laws, we will accept ths case by cerifcation and addess the merits of this interlocutory appeal. Mater of Ruiz-Campuzano, 17 l&N Dec. 108 (BIA 1979); Matter of Ku, 15 I&N Dec. 712 (BIA 1976); Matter of Guevara, 20 l&N Dec. 238 (BIA 1990, 1991); Mater of Dobere, 20 l&N Dec. 188 (BIA 1990). Tis matter was last befre the Board on October 28, 2009, when we sutaned the DHS's appeal of te Immigration Judge's decision dated September 4, 2008, which granted the 1 Te respondents in this case are a husband, wif, and thee children. The husband (A076 133 969) is the lead respondent and will be refrred to as the "lead respondent" or "M. Qatanani." I m m i g r a n t
&
R e f u g e e
A p p e l l a t e
C e n t e r
|
w w w . i r a c . n e t Cite as: Mohammad M. Qatanani, A076 133 969 (BIA May 13, 2014) A076 133 969 et al. respondents' application fr adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1255(a). We remanded the record to the Immigration Judge with instructions to frther evaluate certain specifc evidentiary issues and to assess whether the lead respondent carried his burden of establishing eligibility fr adjustent of status; in particular, whether the lead respondent established that he is not inadmissible under section 212(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act fr engaging in terorist activities (BIA Dec. at 3-4 ), and whether he established that he is not inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act fr maing material faudulent misrepresentations on his application fr adjustent of stats (BIA Dec. at 4-5). On Jauary 10, 2012, the respondents made Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests to the FBI and various DHS components (collectively referred to herein as "the goverent") fr documents relating to the lead respondent. The D HS assers that in response to those requests the goverent conducted a seach, deterined that certain infration is protected fom disclosure under FOIA's statutory exemptions, and released the non-exempt, segregable portions of responsive docuents (DHS Brief in Support of Interlocutory Appeal at 6-7; I.J. at 5). On June 29, 2012, and August 24, 2012, the respondents fled complaints against the Depament of Justice and the DHS in te United States District Court fr the District of New Jersey, seeking to compel the disclosure of records withheld in fll or in part and, if necessay, to compel fther searches fr responsive documents ("the FOIA litigation"). See Qatanani v. Dep 't of Justice, 2: 12-cv-04042-KSH-PS (D.N.J.) (fled June 29, 2012); Qatanani v. Dep't of Homeland Securit, 2:12-cv-05379-KSH-PS (D.N.J.) (fled August 24, 2012). Notwithstding the FOIA litigation, the respondents fled their motion fr subpoenas with the Imigration Judge. The Immigration Judge apparently without conducting a hearing, fud that the respondents satisfed the regulatory requirements fr the issuance of the subpoenas, and tat despite the respondents' eforts trough FO IA and the FO IA litigation, they have been unsuccessfl in obtaining the requested documents or have obtained documents that were heavily redacted pursuant to vaious FOIA exemptions (I.J. at 3-5). Relying on Oliva-Ramos v. Att ' Gen., 694 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2012), 2 the Immigration Judge concluded that the respondents demonstated that the documents they seek are essential to the issues to be resolved in this case, and he issued subpoenas which commad the FBI and ICE to produce certain documents. 3 2 In Oliva-Ramos, the Tird Circuit concluded that the alien's subpoena request was essential to his claim that ICE engaged in "egegious or widespread violations ad alleged constitutional violations" because the subpoenaed materials could have shed light on the contested natue of the alien's alleged consent fr the ICE enter the premises, and the testimony of ofcers could have been used to adduce additional fcts that may have altered the analysis of the constitutional claims. Oliva-Ramos v. Att' Gen., 694 F.3d 259, 273 (3d Cir. 2012). 3 The Immigration Judge's subpoenas command the FBI and ICE to produce (I) records relating to the lead respondent coverng the time period between his interview with FBI and ICE agents on February 7, 2005, and August 26, 2005, which is when the FBI issued a letter to the United States Customs ad Immigration Service stating that the lead respondent's adjustment application should not be suspended on te ground that the FBI has interposed an objection; (2) FBI and ICE agents' notes and repors of te February 2005 meeting; and (3) unedacted copies of documents released by ICE on July 15, 2012, pursuant to the respondents' FOIA request. See Appendix B attached to subpoena fr documents issued to ICE, Janua 18, 2013. 2 I m m i g r a n t
&
R e f u g e e
A p p e l l a t e
C e n t e r
|
w w w . i r a c . n e t Cite as: Mohammad M. Qatanani, A076 133 969 (BIA May 13, 2014) A076 133 969 et al. We will vacate the Immigation Judge's decision and quash the subpoenas because they are premature and overbroad, the Immigration Judge did not identif or establish a procedure fr addressing any privilege issues, and the Immigation Judge has not sufciently explained how the documents te respondents seek are "essential" to issues material to their case. 8 C.F.R. 1003.35(b). Although the Immigration Judge did narrow the respondents' initial request (1.J. at 6), the subpoenas remain impenissibly overbroad. For example, the subpoena issued to the ICE orders that, in addition to te production of "FBI Agent Angel L. Alicea's notes fom the February 7, 2005 meeting between Dr. Qatanani and the FBI and ICE," the ICE must produce "notes taken by any other federal goverent agent present at the meeting" (I.J. Subpoena to ICE, 2). FBI Special Agent Alicea is not employed by the ICE, and the commad fr the ICE to produce notes fom a individual not under its control, or notes taken by oter fderal agents, is overbroad. Similaly, the subpoena to the FBI is overbroad as it commands te agency to produce "notes taken by any other fderal goverent agent present at [the Febrary 7, 2005] meeting" (I.J. Subpoena to FBI, 1 3). Te subpoena power bestowed upon Immigation Judges is limited in nature. See section 240(c)(2)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 1003.35, 1208.12(b); Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule I, describing the scope of the rules; Matter of Henriquez Rivera, 25 l&N Dec. 575, 579 (BIA 2011) (rejecting the Immigration Judge's deterination that the OHS is required to provide the Immigration Court with an applicant's complete administrative record fom the USCIS); Matter of Benitez, 19 l&N Dec. 173 (BIA 1984) (noting that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ae not applicable in deportation proceedings, and there is no requirement that a request fr discovery be honored). The Immigration Judge acknowledged that general discovery is prohibited in these proceedings, and expressed concers about a "fshing expedition" (l.J. at 3). As noted by the Immigration Judge, several of the respondents' requests are related to the lead respondent's "claim that he did not provide material support to a terrorist organization," and that he seeks potential "exculpatory evidence" (l.J. Dec. at 3). The regulations require the party seeking the subpoena to state what they "expect to prove" fom the documents. 8 C.F.R. 1003.35(a)(2). While exculpatory evidence may exists, a subpoena based on the hope that such evidence will be uncovered is impermissible discovery. Matter of Benitez, supra; Mater of Gonzalez, 16 I&N Dec. 44, 46 (BIA 1976). Oliva-Ramos may not be interreted as a basis fr authorizing Imigration Judges to order discovery; generalized discovery requests, fom either party, are inappropriate in removal proceedings. Matter of Khaliah, 21 I&N Dec. I 07, 112 (BIA I 995) (no right to discovery in deportation proceedings); Marroquin-Manriquez v. INS, 699 F.2d 129, 136 n.l l '(3d Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1259 (1984) (availability of infration under FOIA undercut the showing of need under 8 C.F.R. 287.4(a)(2). With regard to the ''essentiality" requirement, the Immigration Judge fund that "although Respondent has the burden of proving his eligibility fr adjustment of status, DHS has complete control over many of the documents necessary to meet this burden" (l.J. Dec. at 4-5). However, the Immigration Judge did not suffciently explan how records in the goverent fles fom 2005 are "necessay" fr the respondent to meet his burden. 3 I m m i g r a n t
&
R e f u g e e
A p p e l l a t e
C e n t e r
|
w w w . i r a c . n e t Cite as: Mohammad M. Qatanani, A076 133 969 (BIA May 13, 2014) A076 133 969 et al. This situation is distinguishable fom Oliva-Ramos, where the alien did not receive FOIA documents in time to present befre the Immigration Cour, and the evidence sought in that case - ICE policy and practice manuals on search and seizure practices and its practices with respect to consent and enty of dwellings - was directly tied to the relevant issue in dispute (i.e., wheter the goverent acted in an egregious maner or engaged in widespread constittional violations i a seach and seize). Oliva-Ramos v. Atty Gen., supra, at 273. I this case, the respondents have already received docuents fom their FOIA efors to present in Immigation Court, 4 and the link between the evidence sought and te relevant issues remans questionable. The lea respondent' s encounter with the Israeli military occured in 1993, and his responses on the adjustment application were made in 1999. Unlike Oliva-Ramos, each of these events predates the evidence te respondents seek fom the goverent. While the respondents may be dissatisfed with the extent of the goverent' s FOIA production, the fct remains tat they did obtain evidence. Moreover, the documents in question here were not created contemporaneously with the relevant events in Israel or the lead respondent's answers on the 1999 adjustment application; but rather, the evidence was created yeas later by third parties. Wle the lead respondent hopes they will bea on the issue of his potential inadmissibility, it is not clear fom the record tat it would. In shor, based on te record currently befre u, both the applicability of Oliva-Ramos and the "essentiality" of such evidence appea tenuous, ad have not been adequately tied to the issues that were remanded. Thus, the "essentiality" requirement has not been met based on te cuent record. Further, the nature of the evidence sought may implicate privilege and confdentiality concers, or relate to national security issues to which the respondents are not entitled in these proceedings. 5 Neither the Immigration Judge's decision, nor the subpoenas identif a procedure fr addressing issues of privilege or confdentiality. In the event tat fture subpoenas ae 4 We take administative notice of documents fled in the FOIA litigation, including the Defndants' Notice of Motion fr Su ary Judgment, which reveal that in response to the respondents' FOIA requests, the goverent released the non-exempt, segregable portions of responsive documents. See generally 8 C.F.R. 1003.l (d)(3)(iv) (permitting this Board to take administrative notice of commonly known fcts, such as curent events and the contents of ofcial records). Specifcally, the goverent has produced the non-exempt, portions of a contemporaneous tanscript of the February 7, 2005, meeting, ad documents relating to the lead respondent' s encounter with the Israeli military. See Qatanani v. Dep 't of Homeland Securit, 2: 12-cv-05379-KSH-PS (D.N.J.), Document 26 (fled Mach 22, 2013); Appendix B attached to subpoena fr documents issued to ICE, Januay 18, 2013. 5 Section 240(b)(4)(B) of the Act, which addresses an alien's rights in removal proceedings, expressly states "these rights shall not entitle the alien to examine such national security infration as the Goverent may profer in opposition to the alien's admission to the United States or to an application by the alien fr discretionary relief under this chapter." To the extent that classifed inforation is presented in immigration cour, proper procedures must be fllowed. See Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum 09-01: Classied Inormation in Immigration Court Proceedings (2009). 4 I m m i g r a n t
&
R e f u g e e
A p p e l l a t e
C e n t e r
|
w w w . i r a c . n e t Cite as: Mohammad M. Qatanani, A076 133 969 (BIA May 13, 2014) A076 133 969 et al. issued, 6 the Immigration Judge should clearly establish a procedue fr handling such issues; tis would include fr exaple requirng in camera inspection of ay documents to which a claim of privilege is assered. Finally, we note that during oral agument befre the Boad both paies indicated a willingness to continue proceedings until a resolution is reached in the pending FOIA litigation. Given te potential fr complete resolution or at least a narrowing of te relevant issues in tat venue, it may be premature to conclude that the respondents have made "diligent eforts without success," as required by the regulations. 8 C.F.R. 1003. 35(b)(2). As such, on remand, in the interest of judicial economy, the Immigration Judge and paties may wish to frther explore the option of a continuance fr a reasonable period to try to await the District Court resolution of the FOIA litigation which may resolve any issues that underlie the subpoena request. Accordingly, the fllowing orders will be entered. ORDER: The DHS's appeal is sustained. FURTHER ORER: The respondents' motion to expedite is denied as moot. FURTHER ORDER: The Immigration Judge's January 22, 2013, order issuing subpoenas to ICE and the FBI is vacated and the record is remanded to the Immigration Court without fher action. 6 Nothing in this decision should be interreted as precluding the Immigration Judge fom issuing subpoenas in the fte. However, if such subpoenas are issued, a hearing should be conducted and fndings of fct rendered to establish that the regulatory stdads ae met, the subpoenas are narrowly tailored ad not tantamount to genera discovery, and proper procedures are established fr the production of ay documents. 5 I m m i g r a n t
&
R e f u g e e
A p p e l l a t e
C e n t e r
|
w w w . i r a c . n e t Cite as: Mohammad M. Qatanani, A076 133 969 (BIA May 13, 2014)