U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of/mmigration Appeals
Office ofthe Clerk
5/07 leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church. Virginia 2204 I

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - OAK

1010 East Whatley Road
Oakdale, LA 71463-1128

Name: MULTANI, HARPREET SINGH

A 206-885-165

Date of this notice: 10/15/2015

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

DOrutL Ca.AA)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Holmes, David B.

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
Cite as: Harpreet Singh Multani, A206 885 165 (BIA Oct. 15, 2015)

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

Frick, William
Law Office of William Frick PLLC
719 Second Avenue
Millennium Tower Suite 701
Seattle, WA 98104

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 2204 I

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - OAK

1010 East Whatley Road
Oakdale, LA 71463-1128

Name: MULTANI, HARPREET SINGH

A 206-885-165

Date of this notice: 10/15/2015

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision in the above-referenced case. This copy is being
provided to you as a courtesy. Your attorney or representative has been served with this
decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1292.S(a). If the attached decision orders that you be
removed from the United States or affirms an Immigration Judge's decision ordering that you
be removed, any petition for review of the attached decision must be filed with and received
by the appropriate court of appeals within 30 days of the date of the decision.
Sincerely,

DonnL C

t2/lA)

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Holmes, David 8.

Userteam:

Cite as: Harpreet Singh Multani, A206 885 165 (BIA Oct. 15, 2015)

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

MULTANI, HARPREET SINGH

A206-885-165
830 PINEHILL RD
JENA, LA 71342

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive office for Immigration Review

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A206 885 165 - Oakdale, LA

Date:

OCT i 5 20\'.j

In re: HARPREET SINGH MULTANI a.k.a. Micky Thapa

APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: William Frick, Esquire
APPLICATION: Reopening

The respondent timely appeals the Immigration Judge's decision denying his motion to
reopen. On August 21, 2015, the Board granted the respondent's emergency motion for a stay.
The Department of Homeland Security has not filed a brief in opposition. The record is
remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this decision.
The Board reviews an Immigration Judge's findings of fact for clear error. 8 C.F.R.
1003.l(d)(3)(i). We review issues of law, discretion, or judgment de novo. 8 C.F.R.
1003.l(d)(3)(ii).
We agree with the respondent that he did not receive effective assistance during his
proceeding. His first counsel withdrew on the date of his hearing. His second counsel was
supposed to file an asylum application at the rescheduled hearing one month later, but did not do
so. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent did not provide an explanation for failing to file
the application, and waived appeal. Thereafter, respondent, appearing pro se, filed a timely
motion to reopen, which was denied. On appeal, the respondent has filed an asylum application,
as well as limited evidence in support of his application. Given the circumstances, the record
will be remanded for a new hearing and decision_. Accordingly, the following orders shall be
issued.
ORDER: The Immigration Judge's orders are vacated.
FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded for further proceedings, including a new
hearing, and entry of a new decision.

FOR THE BOARD

Cite as: Harpreet Singh Multani, A206 885 165 (BIA Oct. 15, 2015)

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

,1-.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMMIGRATION COURT
OAKDALE, LOUISIANA

Harpreet Singh MULTANI

Respondent

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

)
)
)
)
)

File No.:A206-885-165

>
CHARGE:

Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as an

immigrant who, at the time of application for admission, was not in
possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, border
crossing card, or other valid entry document required by the Act, and a
valid unexpired passport, or other suitable travel document, or document
of identity and nationality as required under the regulations issued by the
Attorney General under section 21 l(a) of the Act.

MOTION:

Motion to Reopen
ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT:
Assistant Chief Counsel
OHS/ICE/Litigation Unit
1010 East Whatley Road
Oakdale, LA 71463

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:

Pro Se

DECISION AND ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

I.

PROCEDURAL & FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 30, 2015, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement ("DHS") personally served Respondent a Notice to Appear ("NTA")
alleging that he is a native and citizen of India who arrived in the United States at Hidalgo, Texas
on December 19, 2014. The DHS further alleged that Respondent did not then possess or present
a valid immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing identification card, or other valid entry
document and was not then admitted or paroled after inspection by immigration officials. Based
on these allegations, the DHS charged Respondent as removable pursuant to section
212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("Act").
At the hearing on February 17, 2015, Respondent admitted the factual allegations and
conceded the charge of removability contained in the NTA. The Court found that Respondent
was removable as charged. On May 7, 2015, Respondent withdrew his application for asylum
and the Court ordered him removed from the United States to India. Respondent waived appeal.

-1-

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

IN THE MATTER OF

..

II.

APPLICABLE LAW

A motion to reopen must state the new facts that will be proven if the motion is granted
and must be supported by affidavits and other evidentiary material. 8 C.F.R. 1003.23(b)(3).
Any motion to reopen for the purpose of acting on an application for relief must be accompanied
by the appropriate application for relief and all supporting documents. Id. A motion to reopen
will not be granted unless the Court is satisfied that the evidence sought to be offered is "material
and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing."
Id. The Court cannot grant a motion to reopen seeking to apply for relief if the Immigration
Judge fully explained the right to apply for such relief and provided an opportunity to apply for
the relief. Id.
Additionally, a motion to reopen is subject to time and numerical limitations. A
respondent can only file one motion to reopen. 8 C.F.R. 1003.23(b)(l). The motion must be
filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal, deportation,
or exclusion, or on or before September 30, 1996, whichever is later. Id. These limitations shall
not apply if the basis of the motion is to apply for asylum or withholding of removal under the
Convention Against Torture, and is based on changed country conditions arising in the country
of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and
was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.
Id. at 1003.23(b)(4)(i).
Ill.

ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION

Upon a thorough review, the Court must deny Respondent's motion to reopen.
Respondent now seeks to apply for asylum. However, the Court notes that Respondent had an
opportunity to apply for such relief at the May 7, 2015, hearing. Nonetheless, his request for
asylum is not based upon circumstances that have arisen subsequent to that hearing. See 8 CFR
10003.2(c)(1). In addition, Respondent's motion is not accompanied by the appropriate
application for relief, supporting documents, affidavits, or other evidentiary material. Id.
Likewise, the evidence sought to be offered is immaterial and was available or could have been
discovered or presented at the prior hearing. Id. Based upon these reasons, the Court must deny
Respondent's motion to reopen.

-2-

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

An Immigration Judge may upon his or her own motion at any time, or upon motion of
the OHS or the alien, reopen or reconsider any case in which he or she has made a decision,
unless jurisdiction is vested with the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). 8 C.F.R.
1003.23(b)(l). A motion to reopen "seeks to reopen proceedings so that new evidence can be
presented and so that a new decision can be entered, normally after a further evidentiary
hearing." Matter of Cerna, 20 I&N Dec. 399,403 (BIA 1991).

Accordingly, the following order is hereby entered:

ORDER:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's motion to reopen is DENIED.

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

- 3-