U.S.

Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals

Qffice of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike. Suire 2000
Falls Church. Virginia 220./I

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - DAL

125 E. John Carpenter Fwy, Ste. 500
Irving, TX 75062-2324

Name: KADIRI, AUGUSTINE

A 095-322-597

Date of this notice: 11/16/2015

Enclosed is a courtesy copy of the Board's decision in the above-referenced case.

Sincerely,

DOY1.rtL C

l1/VL)

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Holiona, Hope Malia

Userteam:

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/

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

Asekun, Olusegun lsiaka

The Law Office of Olu Asekun
607 East Abram Street
Suite 9
Arlington, TX 76010

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File:

A095 322 597 - Dallas, TX

Date:

NOV 1 6 2015

In re: AUGUSTINE KADIRI

APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Pro se 1
APPLICATION: Continuance
The respondent, a native and citizen of Nigeria, has appealed from the Immigration Judge's
May 15, 2014, decision. The record will be remanded to the Immigration Judge.
The Board reviews an Immigration Judge's findings of fact, including findings as to the
credibility of testimony, under the "clearly erroneous" standard. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i);
Matter of S-H-, 23 I&N Dec. 462, 464-65 (BIA 2002). The Board reviews questions of law,
discretion, and judgment and all other issues in appeals from decisions of Immigration Judges de
novo. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(ii).
The respondent sought a continuance of the removal proceedings while the appeal of the
revocation of the visa petition filed on his behalf was pending with the Board. Subsequent to the
Immigration Judge's decision, the Board sustained the appeal of the revocation of the visa petition
filed on the respondent's behalf. Thus, the respondent is now the beneficiary of an approved visa
petition, which was filed by his United States citizen wife. Under these circumstances, we find it
appropriate to remand the record for the Immigration Judge to determine the respondent's present
eligibility for relief from removal.
Accordingly, the following order will be entered.
ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion and for the entry of a new decision.

Although Olusegun Asekun, Esquire, submitted the appeal on behalf of the respondent, the
Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative before the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Form EOIR-27) submitted with the appeal does not list the respondent as the represented
party. Rather, the Form EOIR-27 lists the respondent's wife as the represented party. Thus, we
will not recognize counsel as the attorney of record, but we will send a copy of this decision to
counsel as a courtesy.

Ziiii&E.t...Z

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

May 15, 2014

File: A095-322-597
In the Matter of
)
)
)
)

AUGUSTINE KADIRI
RESPONDENT

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

CHARGE:

Section 237(a)(1)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as

amended) - in that after admission as a nonimmigrant under
Section 101(a)(15) of the Act, you failed to maintain or comply with
the nonimmigrant status under which you were admitted.

APPLICATION:

Request for continuance.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: OLUSEGUN ASEKUN

607 East Abrams Street, Suite 9
Arlington, Texas 76010
ON BEHALF OF OHS: BRANDON YURO
Assistant Chief Counsel
Dallas, Texas
ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE
This case has a long history. Previously, on two occasions, July 17, 2006 and
May 18, 2010, the Court ordered the respondent removed and deported from United
States to Nigeria. The record reflects the respondent is a native and citizen of Nigeria,
that he entered the United States at New York City, New York as a B-2 visitor on or
1

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

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
DALLAS,TEXAS

about July 6, 2002, as a nonimmigrant B-2 for pleasure, with authorization to remain the
United States for a temporary period not to exceed January 5, 2003. He remained in

Homeland Security (hereafter referred to as the Government). Consequently, the

Government charged respondent with removal pursuant to Section 237(a)(1)(C)(i) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (as amended), in that after admission as a
nonimmigrant under Section 101 (a)(15) of the Act, he failed to maintain or comply with
the nonimmigrant status under which he was admitted.
At a prior hearing that was conducted on June 12, 2006, the respondent admitted
to the factual allegations, through counsel, and conceded to the charge of removal.
Therefore, removal was established by clear and convincing evidence. Nigeria was
designated as the country of removal.
As previously stated, on at least two occasions the Court had denied the
respondent's request for relief and/or continuances and ordered him removed and
deported from United States to Nigeria.
The matter comes before the Court again on a request for a continuance to allow
an adjudication of an appeal of a denial of an 1-130 petition. This matter was initially
scheduled for a Hashmi hearing to determine whether or not a further continuance
should be granted based on a petition filed by the respondent's second wife, Ramona
Taylor. In doing so, the Court will consider factors outlined in Matter of Hashmi. 24 l&N
Dec. 785 (BIA 2009).
However, prior to today's hearing, the Government revoked a previously filed
petition by Ramona Taylor because of a previous 1-130 petition that had been denied
based on a 204(c) finding. The respondent was previously married to a Lavina Nnama
Kadiri. On or about March 9, 2005, the Government determined that the respondent
A095-322-597

May 15, 2014

.11,1.:,,.CWL

, .. ?&J.AJMG.

M..w.:ll44t4.

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

the United States beyond January 5, 2003, without permission from the Department of

i.

had entered into a fraudulent marriage and made a 204(c) finding. See Exhibit 3. Since
the respondent's marriage ended with Lavina, he remarried to his current wife, Ramona

Taylor on behalf of the respondent. That petition was approved. However, later the
Government determined that the petition filed by Ramona Taylor was not properly
approved, in that the Government had determined that the respondent's first marriage to
Lovina was a fraudulent marriage and that he had entered the marriage for the
purposes of obtaining an Immigration benefit. See Exhibits 3, 4, and a notice of intent
to revoke 1 which is part of the record of proceedings and has been admitted into
evidence.
The respondent today argued that his case should be continued because he has
appealed the revocation of the visa petition that was filed by Ramona Taylor. In this
regard, this matter falls outside of the Matter of Hashmi. The Matter of Hashmi, from
the Court's understanding and perspective, stands for the proposition that a continuance
should be favorably adjudicated if the respondent can meet several factors as outlined
in Matter of Hashmi to allow the Government to adjudicate an 1-130 petition. Here, the
1-130 petition has been adjudicated and revoked and, therefore, is not prima facie
approval.
The respondent presented several witnesses today. The first two witnesses the
respondent presented,Rosa Marie Taylor and Ramona Taylor, did not have any
relevant testimony,because the issue is not whether or not the respondent's present
marriage to Ramona Taylor is bona fide; the issue is whether or not a 204(c) finding can
withstand judicial review; that is 1 whether or not this Court believes that the respondent

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

Taylor, in 2006. Pursuant to that marriage, an 1-130 petition was filed by Ramona

had entered into a fraudulent marriage. To this extent, neither Ramona Taylor nor Rosa
Marie Taylor provided any helpful information. They were not present during the
A095-322-597

May 15, 2014

&i

J.Z,%$3. CZ

respondent's first marriage to Lavina.

The testimony of the respondent was the sole testimony of evidence that was

with Lavina was a bona fide marriage. After reviewing the evidence in this case, the
Court finds the respondent is not credible. The respondent wants the Court to believe
that during the interview of the first petition filed by Lavina, his first wife Lavina was
coerced. Yet, the respondent clearly testified that Lavina was represented by counsel,
and counsel was present in the room during the interview although the respondent was
not present. The Court finds it unworthy of belief that Lavina could be coerced into
siQning a document withdrawing the 1-130 petition and claiming that her marriage to the
respondent was not bona fide if Lavina was represented by counsel and that counsel
was present during the 1-130 interview as respondent testified.
Secondly, the Court found the respondent is not credible because respondent
testified that he was not interviewed based upon his marriage to Lavina. However, the
evidence in this record, specifically the notice of intent to revoke the 1-130 petition and
the decision to revoke the 1-130 petition with Lavina, that is, to deny the 1-130 petition
with Lovina based on a 204(c) finding, clearly indicates that both Lavina and the
respondent were interviewed. And because of the interview, which was conducted
separately, there were discrepancies between the answers that were provided to
Immigration officials to the same questions, and this was the basis in which the
Government determined that the 1-130 petition filed by Lavina should be denied and that
a 204(c) finding should be made once Lavina withdrew the petition.
In addition, as part of Exhibit No. 4, the Government has submitted an affidavit

from Lavina, and clearly this affidavit from Lavina indicates that and sustains the 204(c)
finding that there was not a bona fide marriage between her and the respondent.
A095-322-597

_;w;:z;_44

May 15, 2014

4.J.4144..JZG....-

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

presented at today's hearing related to whether or not the marriage that he entered into

Additionally, the Court would note that in an unpublished decision issued by the
Board on September 7,2007, the Board stated, as it relates to this case: "In the

consider the evidence presented by OHS that a visa petition filed on the respondent's
behalf by his previous spouse was withdrawn after discrepancies arose during an
interview and she acknowledged that she had only married respondent to help him
obtain Immigration benefits. Exhibit 4. Based on the circumstances of this case, we do
not find that the Immigration Judge has been shown to have acted unreasonably in
denying a further continuance of respondent's removal proceedings. Accordingly, the
appeal is dismissed." See Board of Immigration Appeals, dated September 7, 2007.
After reviewing all the facts in this case, the Court finds that good cause has not
been established. Therefore, the Court will deny the respondent's request for a
continuance.
Respondent is not seeking any other relief before the Court. Accordingly, the
Court will issue the following order:
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED respondent's request for a continuance be denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED respondent shall be removed and deported from
the United States to Nigeria based on the charge contained in the Notice to Appear.
Dated this 15th day of May, 2014.

Please see the next page for electronic

signature

A095-322-597

DEITRICH H. SIMS
United States Immigration Judge

May 15, 2014

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

present case, in exercising his discretion,the Immigration Judge could reasonably

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

May 15, 2014

A095-322-597

I')

/Isl/
Immigration Judge DEITRICH H. SIMS

A095-322-597

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

simsd on May 5, 2015 at 7:35 PM GMT

May 15, 2014