U.S. Department of .

Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board ofImmigration Appeals
Office ofthe Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, S11ite 2000
Falls Ch11rch, Virginia 20530

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel -BLM

(MSP)
1 Federal Drive, Suite 1800
Ft. Snelling, MN 55111

Name: FLORES-MACEDA, FERNANDO

A 205-506-988
Date of this notice: 6/15/2015

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

DcnrtL c

aAA)

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Grant, Edward R.

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/

, ; .

. ..:m"="(H3..C.c..

.w:u:;;....,,,....,.,,.,,,_.,,,.,..,

,(v:,_J.&JJllilrnWWW

ajli,

, (0...wl. .P.C.19,.,.W.Q.M.V.?_416,W .&&ii(

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

Koberstein, Susan A
Wilson Law Group
3019 Minnehaha Avenue
Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55406

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Falls Church, Vuginia 20S30

File: A205 506 988 - Bloomington, MN

Date:

JUN 15 2015

In re: FERNANDO FLORES-MACEDA

APPEAL AND MOTION

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Susan A Koberstein, Esquire
APPLICATION: Continuance; administrative closure
The respondent has appealed the Immigration Judge's May 28, 2014, decision. While this
appeal was pending, the respondent filed a motion for administrative closure in order to pursue a
request for nonimmigrant status under the provisions of section 101(a)(15)(U) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(U). The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) has not responded to the request for administrative closure nor has the DHS
submitted a brief on appeal. The record will be remanded.
In support of the motion the respondent submitted evidence including that he got married to
an individual on July 24, 2014, that has filed a Petition for Qualifying Family Member of U-1
Recipient (Form I-918A) on his behalf. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we will
remand the record for the Immigration Judge to determine, in the first instance, what action, if
any, should be taken with respect to these removal proceedings while the DHS considers the
Form I-918A For example, it may be appropriate for the Immigration Judge to continue these
removal proceedings or administratively close them. See Matter of Sanchez Sosa, 25 l&N
Dec. 807(BIA 2012); Matter ofAvetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012).
Accordingly, the following order shall be entered:
ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further action or proceedings
consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision.

FOR THE BOAR/

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA

In the Matter of
)
)
)
)

FERNANDO FLORES-MACEDA
RESPONDENT

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

CHARGE:

Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) - present without admission or parole.

APPLICATIONS:

Continuance and voluntary departure in the alternative.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: SUSAN A. KOBERSTEIN

Attorney at Law
ON BEHALF OF OHS: DANIEL J. PORNSCHLOEGL
Assistant Chief Counsel

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

The respondent was placed in removal proceedings on May 6, 2013, by the filing
with the Immigration Judge of the Notice to Appear. Exhibit 1. He was charged with
being subject to removal under Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (Act) based upon allegations that he entered the United States near
Douglas, Arizona, on or about February 1, 2005, without being admitted or paroled after
inspection by an Immigration Officer.

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

May 28, 2014

File: A205-506-988

The respondent, through counsel, admitted all four of the factual allegations and
conceded the charge. Based upon the respondent's admissions and concessions and

1240.10(c).
The respondent submitted documents to support a request for a continuance in
this case, which the Court received during this hearing and which will be entered as
Exhibit No. 2. The document is a Form 1-918, Supplement B Certification, signed by a
law enforcement official on April 14, 2014. The respondent seeks a continuance of the
proceedings so that, first, his fiancee who is the mother of the victim listed in the Exhibit
2 can get a divorce so that the respondent and she can get married and then she can
file a derivative U visa application on behalf of the respondent.
The Court will deny the request for a continuance in this case since at this point
in time the respondent is not eligible for U visa or derivative U visa because he is not
related to the victim in this case because he is not married to the victim's mother. The
respondent himself was apparently previously married, but, according to
representations from counsel, he has received a divorce from his prior wife. The Court
is not inclined to grant a continuance on the basis of events that may or may not occur
in the future. The respondent currently is not married to the mother of the U visa related
victim and she is not legally free to marry him. The Court also notes that U visas may
be obtained by persons who are residing outside of the United States. If the respondent
has to leave the country, he may still pursue a subsequent marriage and U visa petition
from Mexico. The Court has no other documentation to evaluate the continuance other
than what is contained in Exhibit 2 and the representations of counsel. Under these
circumstances, the Court finds a continuance inappropriate.
The Court notes that although the respondent has two OWi's in 2013 and
A205-506-988

May 28, 2014

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

there being no other issue of law or fact relating to the charge, it is sustained. 8 C.F.R.

admitted he was driving without a valid driver's license, the Court will grant voluntary
departure in this case. The respondent has already indicated he will be filing an appeal

granted for a period of 60 days on or before July 27th of this year.

Accordingly, the following orders shall be entered:
ORDER
1. The charge under Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act is sustained.
2. The respondent is granted the privilege of voluntarily departing the United
States on or before July 27, 2014, upon the posting of a voluntary departure bond in the
amount of $500 on or before June 4, 2014, with an alternate order of removal to Mexico.
3. The notice to respondents granted voluntary departure is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.

Please see the next page for electronic

signature

A205-506-988

SUSAN E. CASTRO
Immigration Judge

May 28, 2014

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

of this decision, so he is eligible simply for post-merits voluntary departure, which will be

/Isl/
Immigration Judge SUSAN E. CASTRO

A205-506-988

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

castros on August S, 2014 at 12:49 PM GMT

May 28, 2014