Andre Luckman Ibrahim, A097 680 747 (BIA Jan. 28, 2015)

8/9/2019 Andre Luckman Ibrahim, A097 680 747 (BIA Jan. 28, 2015)

1/15

U

.S. D

ep a

r tm e

n t

of Jus

tice

Exec

uti ve

O ff

ic e f

or Im

m ig

ration

R ev

iew

Bo

ard o

m

migr

atio n

pp

eals

Offi

ceo

he

Cle r

k

5107

L

eesb11r

gPike

S11ite 2000

Fa l

ls Chur

ch Vir

ginia

2053 0

M

ugam

bi

Irene

G.

Esq .

O

HS/

ICE

Offi

ce o

f C

hief Co

unse

l - D

AL

La

wO ff ic

e

o

f

Ir en

e M u

gam

bi P

.C.

125

E Jo

hn

Car

pent

er Fw

y S

te. 5

00

27

20

N Ste

mmo

nsF

rw y

S T

ow er

Su

ite

711

Ir

v ing

TX

7506

2-2 3

24

Da

llas

TX 7

52 0

7

N

am e

: IB R

AHIM

AN

DRE

LU

CKM

AN

A

097 -

680 -

747

Dat

e

o

f

this

notic

e 1

28/2

015

En

clo se

d is

a cop

y

of the B

oard

s de

cis io

n an

d ord

er in

th e a

bov

e-ref

erenc

ed c

ase .

E

nclo

sure

Pa

nel M

em b

ers

Pa

uley

Rog

er

W en

dtlan

d L

inda

S

Co

le P

atric

ia A

Sin c

ere ly

,

D

onn

a C a

rr

h

ief

Clerk

Us

erte

am D

ock

et

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Andre Luckman Ibrahim, A097 680 747 (BIA Jan. 28, 2015)


2/15

U.S.

epartment

of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Decision of the Board

of

Immigration Appeals

Falls Church, Virginia 20530

File: A097 680 747 - Dallas, TX

Date:

In

re:

ANDRE LUCKMAN IBRAHIM

IN

REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

APPEAL AND MOTION

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Irene G Mugambi, Esquire

CHARGE:

Notice: Sec. 237(a)( I )(C)(i), I N

Act

[8 U.S.C. l 227(a)( I )(C)(i)] -

Nonimmigrant - violated conditions of status (found)

Lodged: Sec. 237(a)(2)(A)(i), l N Act [8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)] -

Convicted of crime involving moral turpitude (found)

Sec. 237(a)(l )(B), I N Act [8 U.S.C. 1227(a)( 1 (B)] -

In

the United States in violation of law (found)

JAN 2 82015

APPLICATION: Continuance; adjustment of status; waiver of inadmissibility; remand

The respondent, a native and citizen

of

Gabon, appeals from the Immigration Judge's

June 11, 2013, decision pretermitting his application for adjustment of status under section

245(a)

of

the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a), based on an approved

Alien Relative Petition (Form I-130) filed on his behalf by his United States citizen wife and

filed in conjunction with a waiver of inadmissibility under section 2 l 2(h)

of

the Act, 8 U S.C.

1182(h). He also maintains that the Immigration Judge erred in denying his request for

a continuance made at his final hearing. His appeal will be sustained and the record will be

remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

We review findings of fact, including credibility findings, for clear error.

See

8 C.F.R.

1003.l(d)(3)(i); see also Matter

o

J-Y-C- 24 I N Dec. 260 (BIA 2007); Matter

o

S-H-

23

l N Dec. 462 (BIA 2002). We review questions of law, discretion, or judgment, and all

other issues de novo. See

8 C.F .R. 1003

1

( d)(3 )(ii).

The Immigration Judge pretermitted the respondent's application for adjustment of status

because he concluded that the respondent did not carry his burden of proof

in

establishing that

the medical and public charge grounds

of

inadmissibility have been overcome in this case

(l.J. at 5-6, 8-9).

See

section 212(a)(l)

of

the Act (outlining the health-related grounds

of

inadmissibility); section 212(a)(4)

of

the Act (explaining when the public charge ground

of

inadmissibility

is

triggered). Specifically, the Immigration Judge concluded that the respondent

did not submit a complete Affidavit of Support from his sponsor and joint sponsor, as these

forms were not supported by the sponsor's and joint-sponsor's federal tax returns from the three



3/15


4/15


5/15

A 09

? 6

807

47

co

nclu

de

th at

, up

on

re m

and

, it

is ap

pro

pr ia

te f

or t

he I

m m

ig r

atio

n Ju

dge

to

re qu

ire

a n

ew

med

ical

an

d

to

set

ap

pro

pria

te

de a

dlin

es

for

fi

lin g

s

uch

do

cum

en

ta tio

n.

See

Po

licy

A

ler

t,

Va

lidi

ty P

eri

od o

fM

edic

al

Cer

tific

atio

n o

n th

e R

epo

rt o

fM

edic

al E

xa

min

atio

n

nd V

ac

cina

tion

Record Form 1-693)

(May 30, 2014) (ex plainin gth at as

o

June

1

2014, a new medical

exa

m in

atio

n w

il l

be r

equ

ired

i

t

hea

pp l

icat

io n

for

adj

ustm

en

t

o

st a

tu s

is n

ot a

dju d

ica

te d

with

in

a

yea

r

o th e

med

ica

l ex

am

's co

m p

le ti

on).

B

eca

use

we

co

nclu

de

th a

t th

e r

espo

nde

nt's

co

ntin

uan

ce

re q

ues

t w

as s

upp

ort

ed b

y

go o

d

c

au se

, w

e n

eed

no

t re

ach

th

e m

eri

ts

o

h

is m

oti

on

to r

em

and

oth

er

th a

n to

no

te

th at

it

is

a

cco

mp

anie

d b

y A

ff i

da vi

ts

o

S

up

port

fro

m

th e

res

pon

den

t' s

wif

e a

nd

jo in

t s

po n

so r

dat

ed

July

16

, 20

14 ,

and

D

ecem

be

r 1

1, 2

01 3

, re

sp e

ct iv

ely,

an

d s

upp

ort e

d b

y th

e p

eti t

io n

er's

201

1,

20

12,

an

d 2

01 3

, t

ax

re tu

rn s,

an

d t

he

jo in

t s

pon

sor

's 2

010

, 2

011

, a

nd

20 1

2,

tax

ret

urn

s

(R e

sp .

M ot

io n

toR

em

and

at

Tab

s A

-B ).

I

n a

ddi

tion

, b

ecau

se

th e

re

spo

nde

nt's

applications fo rrelie fare continuin g ones , upon

rem

and

, th

e pa

rt ie

s ar

e in

vit

ed t

o p

re se

nt a

ny

add

itio

na l

te st

im o

nia l

an

d do

cum

en

ta ry

ev

id en

ce

per

tine

nt t

o th

e re

spo

nde

nt' s

app

lica

tio

ns i

n as

si sti

ng

th e

Im m

ig r

atio

n Ju

dg

e wi

th a

dju

dic a

tion

o

th

e sa

m e

, in

clu d

in g

b ut

n o

t lim

ite

d to

an

u pd

ate

d m

edi

ca l

exa

m , n

ew

f in

an c

ial r

ec o

rd s

re le

van

t

to

the

af

fida

vit

o

s

upp

ort

, an

d ev

id e

nce

rel

ated

to

th e

har

dsh

ip t

hat

the

res

pon

den

t' s

wife

an

d

chi

ld m

ay

exp

eri

enc

e sh

oul

d h

e be

re

m ov

ed

from

th

e U

nit

ed

Stat

es .

S

ee M

at

ter

ofA

la r

co n

,

2

0 I

N

Dec

. 55

7,

56 2

(B

IA

19 9

2).

To

th

e e

xte n

t th

at a

ny

doc

um

enta

ry

evid

enc

e i

s so

ugh

t

bu

t c a

nno

t b

e o

bta i

ne d

, th

e p

art i

es m

ay

fu

rthe

r as

si st

th

e Im

m

ig ra

tion

Ju

dg e

by

ex

pla i

nin

g

w ha

t e f

fo rt

s w

ere

un

dert

ake

n a

nd

why

an

y s

uc h

ef

fo rt

s w

er e

un

su cc

ess

fu l.

See

Ma

tter

of

In

teria

no

-Ros

a, 2

5 I

N

Dec

. 2

64

(B IA

2

01 0

) (f

in di

ng t

ha t

alt

hou

gh

a fa

ilur

e to

tim

ely

fil

e a

do

cum

ent

ma

y re

su l

t in

wa

iv er

o th e

opp

ort

un it

y to

pr

ovid

e t

he s

am

e, it

do

es n

ot

pre v

ent

the

re s

pon

den

t f

rom

ot

her

wis

e a

ttem

pti

ng

to

ca rr

y h

is

bur

den

o

p r

oo f

wi

th

re sp

ect

to

th e

in form ationpurp ortedly conta

in e

d in

the

d o

cum

ent

inq

ues

tion

).

Acc

or di

ngl

y, th

e fo

llo

win

g or

der

s wi

ll b

e en

tere

d.

O

RD

ER

: Th

e re

spo

nde

nt's

app

ea l

iss

us ta

ine

d.

FUR

TH

ER

O

RD

ER:

T

he

rec

ord

is

re

man

de d

to

th

e I

m m

ig ra

tion

Ju

dg

e fo

r f

ur th

er

pro

cee d

in g

s co

nsi

st en

t w

it ht

his

ord

er a

nd f

or t

he e

ntry

o

a n

ew d

eci

sion

.

4

ill

4

4



6/15

U N

IT E

D S T

A T E

SD E

P A R

TM E

N T

OF

JU

STI

CE

EX E

C U T

IV E

O FF I

CE F

OR

IM M

IG RA

TIO N

REV

IEW

U N ITE D S T A TE S IM M IG RA TIO N

COURT

I D

ALL

AS. T

EX

S

File:

A09

7-68

0-74

7

J

une 1

1, 2

013

In

th e

M att

e r of

AN D

R E

LUC

KM A

N IB

RAH

IM

)

)

)

)

IN R

EMO

V L

P R

O C E

E D I

N G S

R

ES P

O N D

E N T

C

HAR

GES:

Secti

on 2

37 a)

1) C

) i) o

f th e

Im m

igra

ti on

and

Natio

nalit

y

ct IN A

).

as

am en

ded

-- in

that

after

a dm

is sio

nas

ano

n-im

m ig r

a n t u

n der

Sec

tion

101

a) 15

)of

th e

ct yo

ufa i

le d

tom a

in tain

o

r

c

om p

ly w i

th

t

he co

ndit

io ns o

f th e

non

-im m

igra

n t sta

tus u

nder

wh

ic h y

ou w

ere

adm

it ted.

Se

ction

237

a){1

) B ) o

fth e

Im m

igra

ti on a

nd N

atio

nali ty

ct IN A

),

as

am e

nde

d-- n

tha

t afte

radm

issi

on a

sa n

on-im

m ig

rant

unde

r

Sec

ti on

101

a) 15

)o

f

t

he

ct yo

uha

ve re

m a in

ed in

th e

Unit

ed

S ta te s

for

a longertimethan perm it ted

n

viola tion

of

th is c

to r a

ny

o th

er law

of

the U

nite

dSta

tes.

Se

ction

2 37

a) 2

) A )

i) of t

he Im

m ig

rati o

nand

Na

ti ona

li ty

ct IN

A},

as am

end

ed -

- n th

a t yo

uha

ve b

een

conv

ic te d

of a

crim

ein v

olvin

g

m o

ra l tu

rpitu

de co

m m

it ted

withi

n five

yea

rs a f

te r a

dm is

sio n

for

wh

ich a

sen

tenc

eof o

ne y

e ar

or

lo n

ger

ma

y have

bee

n im

pose

d.

APP

LICA

TIO N

S:

Re

ques

t for

adjus

tm e

nt of

statu

spu

rsua

n t to

Sect

io n 2

45 a

)of t

he

Im

m ig

ration

and

Nat

io nal

it y ct

IN

A), a

sam

end

ed.

R

eque

st fo

r w a i

ver o

fin a

dm is

sibilit

ypu

rsuan

t to

Sect

io n 2

12 h

) o

f

t

he Im

m ig

rat ion

and

Nat

io nal

it y

ct IN

A), a

sam

end

ed.

O

N B E

H A L

FO

FRE

S PO

ND E

NT:

P R O

S E

ON B

E H A

LF

OF O

HS:

LYN

NJ

VIER

t 1 '

1.lZ..M

u ..

&z.:u:. :,A

:;_'f l&QQJ*

Jfo

t . l n z ; ; i44X:M,V

U

}?


7/15

ORAL DECI

SION

OF

THE

IMMIGRA TIO

N JUDGE

The res

pondent is a n

ative and citize

n o f Gabon.

He was admitt

ed to the

United States

at New Yo rk,

New York

on

o

r about Dece

mber 9 2004

as

an F-1 non

immigra n

t studen t toatt

end ELS Lang

uage Centers

in Louisville , K

entucky. He

transferred t

o Grayson Co

unty College

in Sherman, Te

xas

on

Janua

ry 14, 2005.

He

did

no

t attend G rays

on County Col

lege from Aug

ust

20

2005 t

o November 1

9, 2005. His

sta

tus was term i

nated

in

SEVI

S by Grayson

County Colleg

e for failure to

enroll on

November

19

2005. He was em ployed for wages or other compensation

on

June

20

2006 at S

nellings Perso

nnel Service

without author

ization o f Imm

igration

and

C

ustoms

Enforcement.

Consequently

, the Departm

ent o Homela

nd Security ( th

e Governmen

t)

ch

arged the resp

ondent with r

emoval pursua

nt to Section 2

37(a)(1 )(C)(i)

o f the Act, as

am ende

d,

in

that after

adm ission as

a non-imm igra

nt under Sect

ion 1

01

(a)(15)

o the

Act

he failed to m

aintain or com

ply with condit

ions o the non

-immigrant s ta

tus under

which

he was ad mi

tted; Section 2

37(a)(1 )( 8) o f

the Act, as am

ended,

in

tha

t after

admis

sion as a non-

immigrant und

er Section 101

(a)(15) of the

Act, he re ma

ined in

the

United

States for a lo

nger time than

permitted

in violation o

th i

s Act or any o

ther law o

the

United States

; and

Section

237(a)(2)(A )( i

) o the Act, as

amended,

in that he has

bee

n convicted o f

a crime involv

ing moral turp

itude com mitte

d within five y

ears after

admissio

n for whicha

sentence

o

on

e year or long

er may be im p

osed.

The

Governme nt h

as the burden

to establis h th

e respondent

s removal by

clear and conv

incing eviden

ce.

T

o establish the

responden t s

removal, th e G

overnmen t s

ubmitted

documen

ts as p art of G

overnments e

videntiary sub

mission, Exhib

it 5. Specifica

lly, the

Govern m

ent submitted

a docume nt d

ated Decemb

er

3

2008 indic

ating that the

responde

nt, Andre Ibra

him, worked fo

r Weaver Airc

rafts starting A

ugust 4 2008

. And

A0

97-680-747

2

June 1

1 2013

{

._

_i Q

_ &&

. _444

4\J


8/15

at the

time, h

e curre

ntly ea

rned $1

0.25

an hour.

The G

overnm

ent al

so subm

itted a

c

opy o

f the em

ployme

nt verif

ication

form, F

orm

1-9 signe

d by th

e respo

ndent,

relating

to em

ployme

nt in

th

e Unite

d State

s. Exh

ibit

5. The G o

vernm

ent also

subm

itted ac

opy

o

f

the

respond

ent's c

onvictio

n reco

rds tha

t consis

t of ac

onvicti

on date

d Dece

mber

15

2008

for for

gery fin

ancial

instrum

ent, as

tate jai

l felony

. The

offense

was co

mmitte

d o

n

Sept

ember

4 2007

under

Texas

Penal

Code S

ection

32.21(

b)

of

th

e Texa

s Pena

l

Code

.

He

w

as give

n a se

ntence

of 180

days st

ate jail

senten

ced by

court,

four yea

rs

deferr

ed adju

dication

. Res

titution

to be d

esignat

ed. Th

e resp

ondent

also ha

s a

co

nvictio

n alsod

ated D

ecem b

er

15 2008 fo

r forger

y

of

af

inancia

l instru

ment w

ith the

offe

nse occ

urring

on Sep

tember

4 200

7 unde

r Sectio

n 32.21

(d) o f

the Tex

as Pen

al

Code

, alsoa

state

jail felo

ny. Se

e Exhib

it

5.

The r

espond

ent ad

mitted

that he

is not a

citizen

r nat

ional o

f the Un

ited

S

tates.

That he

is a n

ative an

d citize

n o f G

abon.

That he

was a

dmitted

to the

United

States

at New

York,

New Y

ork on

or abou

t Dece

mber 9

2004

as an

F-1 non

-immig

rant

studentto attend ESLLanguage Centers

in

Louisville, Kentucky. That he transferredto

Gra

yson C

ounty C

ollege

in She

rman, T

exas

on Janu

ary 14,

2005.

That h

e did n

ot

attend

Grayso

n Coun

ty Colle

ge from

Augu

st

20

2

005 to

Novem

ber 19

, 2005.

Thath

is

stu

dent sta

tus wa

s termi

nated

in SEVIS

by Gr

ayson

County

Colleg

e for fa

ilure to

enroll

o

n

No

vembe

r 19, 2

005. H

owever

, respo

ndentd

enied

that he

was em

ploye

d for wa

ges

o

r other

compe

nsation

on Ju

ne 20,

2006 at

Snellin

g Pers

onnel S

ervice

s.

Th

e Cour

t also r

eceived

a com

puter p

rintout

from th

e SEV

IS Eligi

bility

Cent

er indic

ating th

at the

respond

ent's

F-1 stat

us was

termin

ated. S

ee Ex

hibit 3.

Based

upon th

e evide

nce

in this ca

se, the

Courtf

inds th

at the c

harges

of

remov

al conta

ined u

pon the

Notice

to App

ear un

der Se

ction 23

7(a)(1

)(C)(i) o

f the A

ct

hav

e been

establ

ished

by

clear

and co

nvincin

g evide

nce

in that the

respo

ndent v

iolated

A097

-680-7

47

3

J

une

11

2013

a

- -

~ T i f

.

.G

.P

. & & t i R Z M M ~

.... 4

P.


9/15

his stude

nt status byw

orking at Sne

lling Personne

l Service. Se

e Exhibit 5. T

he Court

al

so finds that th

e correspond

ing allegation

num ber 7 ha

s also beene

stablished by

clear

and convincin

g evidenceba

sed upon the

evidence s ub

mitted by the

Governme nt

at Group

Exhibit

5.

T

he Court f inds

that the G ov

ernment has

me t his burde

n in establishi

ng

the two

charges o rem

oval containe

d upon the

1-261

n

thatthe

responde nt

has

remaine

d

n

the Unite

d S tates for a

long er tim e t

han permitte d

n

violationo

f this Act o r

any

other law o f th

e United Sta t

es when hiss

tudent status

was terminate

d for failing to

attend G

rayson Coun

ty College as

required by la

w. See Exhib

its 3 and 5.

The Court

also finds t

hat the respon

dent s convic

tions for forge

ry o financia

l instruments

pursuant

to

Section 32.21

(d) of the T ex

as Penal Cod

e relates to a

crime involvin

g moral

t

urpitude. The

y relate to fra

ud. And there

fore, the Cou

rt finds thati t

does relate to

a

crime involvin

g moral turp i

tude. The nex

t issue that th

e C ourt is go

ing to resolve

is

whe

ther or notth

e crimes invo

lving moral tu r

pitude w erec

ommitted with

in five years

after the respondent was admitted. And th e C ourt finds the Gover nm ent has me t its

burden in th

is regard in th

at the respon

dent was adm

itted to the U

nited States o

n

Decem be

r

9

2004. Th

e offenses fo r

forgery o f fina

ncial instrum

ents were com

mitted on

Sep

tember 4 200

7, within the f

ive year perio

d. See Group

Exhibit 5. Th

e next issue

th

e C ourt is goi

ng to resolve is

whetheror

not the res po

ndent s sente

nce of one ye

ar or

moreco

uld be impose

d. In this reg

ard, the Court

refers to S ec

tion 12.35 o t

he Texas

Penal Cod

e, a state ja il f

elony. An ind

ividual adjudg

ed gu ilty o a

state jail fe lon

y shall

be punish

ed by confine

ment

n

a sta

te jail for any

term o notm

ore than two y

ears or

less th

an 18 0 days.

Therefore a s

entence o on

e year o r long

er may have

been

imposed

upon the resp

ondent pursua

nt to Section

12.35 related

to his conv ic t

ion for

forg

ery o a finan

cial instrumen

t under Sect i

on 32.21 (d) o

the Texas Pe

nal Code.

A

097-680-747

June

11 2013


10/15

... ...

Ther

efo re t

he cha

rgeo

f

r

emova

l purs u

antto S

ection

23 7(a

)(2)(A )

(i) of

th

e Act h

as bee

n

establis

hed by

cle ar

and co

nvincin

g evide

nce fo

r the re

asons

sta te d

abo ve

.

I

n

cas

e remo

val be

comes

necess

ary , th

e Cour

t desig

nates G

ab on .

the

c

ountry

w h ich

the re s

ponden

t isa c

itizen

of

The

re s pon

dent s

eeks re

lief fro

m rem o

val in

the for

m of

an

ap plic

ation fo

r

adju

stm ent

of stat

us. Th

e evide

ncein

thisca

se indi

cates t

hatres

ponden

t isma

rried to

a

U nite

d State

s ci tize

n, Kim

berly Ib

rahim ,

an d th

at the m

arriag

e took

pla ce

in 200 8

.

Kimbe

rlyfile

d an 1

-130pet

ition on

be ha

lf ofthe

res pon

dent,

which w

asap

pro ved

on o r

about

J u ne 1

2009

. Purs

uant to

th a t approval no tice, th e re spondent submitte d

an

applic

ation fo

r adjus

tm ent

of statu

s, Form

1-48

5. Beca

use th

e re sp

ondent

has be

en

co

nvicte

d o f two

cr im e

s invol

vingm

oral tu r

pitude

th at m a

ke h im

in adm

issible

un der

S

ection

21 2(a)

(2 1), r

espond

entn e

eded a

wa iver

un der

Se ctio

n 212(

h)

of

th

e Act a

nd he

has t

o show

ex trem

e hard

ship fo

r a qua

lifying

relative

.

A

t today

s h ear

ing. th

e Cour

t found

def icie

ncies i

n th e re

spond

ents

application fo r adju stm ent

of

status. Tho

se defi

ciencie

s inclu

dedth e

a f fida

vit

of

s

upport

fro

m the

sponso

r and c

o-spon

sor. S

pecific

ally, th

e affida

vit o

f

s

upport

from K

im berly

.

Ki

mberly

has su

bmitted

th re e

aff idav

its o

f

s

upp ort,

alo ng

with ta

x re tu r

ns for 2

008 an

d

2

007. T

he Cou

rt finds

th at p

urs uan

t to the

re gula

tions,

respon

dent is

req uire

d to su

bm it

thes p

onsor s

mo st r

ecent t

ax retu

rns. T

hatwo

uld be,

at a m

inimum

, fo r th

e years

20 12

o

r 2011 .

Re sp

ondent

failed t

o do so

. The

C o urt

would

alsono

te that

it h as

concer

ns

abo

ut the t

ax retu

rn subm

itted

by Kim

berly in

20 08.

The ta

x retur

n subm

itted t

o the

Co

urt in

2008 o

n Kim b

erlys b

ehalf d

oesno

t list th

e re spo

ndent

as a sp

ouse,

butm o

re

im p

ortantl

y, Kim b

erly cl

aim ed

th at sh

e is he

ad o

f

h

ouseho

ld eve

n th oug

h Kim

berly w

as

m

ar ried

to the

respon

dent in

200 8.

Notwit

hstand

ingth e

re s pon

dent s

be ing

in the

detent

ionfac

ility loc

ated in

Hask e

ll. Tex

as for a

pproxi

mately

two m

onths,

the Co

urt find

s

A

097-6

80-747

une

11 201

3


11/15

that the respondent and Kimberly would be considered living together as husband and

wife and therefore Kimberly s tax return for 2008 does not reflect her true filing status.

But nevertheless, the major concern that the Court has is that it does not have the

properly completed affidavit o support with the most recent tax returns.

Additionally, the co-sponsor s tax returns, because

o

Kimberly s low

income and to overcome the poverty guidelines, have also not been properly submitted

n that the co-sponsor. Lakeisha, has submitted tax returns for 2007 and 2009. The

Court does not have the proper affidavit o support completed for Lakeisha, but more

importantly, the most recent tax returns for Lakeisha as a co-sponsor for either 2012 or

2011. And therefore, the Court finds that respondent has failed to meet his burden o

proof that he is not inadmissible under the poverty guidelines as a public charge.

The Court also finds that pursuant to an application for adjustment

o

status under Section 245 o the Act. respondent

s

required to submit to a medical

examination, a physical examination. The Court finds that he does have a medical

examination in the file, but that medical examination is outdated. The date on the

medical examination s dated sometime

n

January 2010. The Court finds that pursuant

to the regulations the medical examination

s

only valid for one year. And therefore, the

medical examination submitted to the Court that has the date o January 2010 is

outdated. Therefore, the respondent has failed to meet his burden o proof that he

s

not inadmissible on medical grounds.

To address these deficiencies, the respondent has requested a

continuance

n

this case. The Government opposes the respondent s request for a

continuance, arguing that the respondent has not demonstrated good cause

n

that the

respondent has had several years to prepare his case.

After reviewing the evidence in this case, the Court finds that the

A097-680-747

6

June 11 2013


12/15

respon

denth

as faile

d to est

ablish

good ca

use fo

r a fu rt h

er con

t inuanc

e in thi

s matte

r.

Asp

revious

ly men

tioned,

the res

ponden

t hasb

een in

remova

l proce

edings

sinc e

approx

imatel

y Nove

mber20

09. O

n

or

ab

out Feb

ruary 5

2009,

the re

sponde

nt was

gra

nted a

cont in

uance i

n this c

ase to

allow h

is wife

to file a

n 1-130

petit io

n.

O

n June

1

200

9, the C

ourtw

as info

rmed th

at the

1-130p

etitionh

ad bee

n

filed

. The r

espond

ent req

uested

a fur th

er cont

inuanc

e to a ll

ow h is

probatio

n of fic

er to

te

stify. T

he m at

ter was

cont in

ued un

til July 6

2009

.

On Ju ly

6 200

9, ther

e wasn

o evide

nce fr o

m th e

probati

on offic

er, eith

er

throug

h testim

ony or

docu m

enta ry

evide n

ce. No

nethele

ss, the

C ou rt

cont i nu

ed the

cas

e until

Octobe

r 26, 20

09 to a

l low th

e respo

ndent

to subm

it th e

1-485a

pplicati

on and

a

fee rec

eipt and

the 1-

601 wa

iver.

On

Octobe

r 26, 20

09, the

resp o

ndentd

id no t h

ave th

e fee re

ceipt f

or the 1-

48

5. A t t

he resp

onden

t s requ

est, the

case w

as con

tinued

until Ja

nuary

25, 201

O to

subm

it thea

ppropri

ate doc

ument

s.

On January 25, 2010, the m atter was onceagai n contin ued for the m erits

h

earing

o Aug

ust 11, 201 O

fo

r the r e

spond

ent s ap

plicatio

n for a

djustm

ent o s

tatus.

The r

espond

ent on

Januar

y 25, 20

1 wa

s given

the 1

-601 app

lication

.

Th

e case

did n o

t

go

for

ward o

n Augu

st

1

1, 2

010. T

he m a

tter was

conti

nueds

evera l t

imes b

y the C

ourt be

cause

o

expe

dited c

ases.

It was c

ontinue

d

fro

m thed

ate o A

ugust

11, 201 O

to N

ovem be

r 12, 2

010. It

was co

ntinue

d from

Novem

ber 12,

2010to

M ar ch

17, 20

11. It

was co

ntinued

from M

arch 1

7, 2011

to

J

anuary

8 20 1

2. The

n it w as

c on tin

ued fro

m th at

date un

til ep

tembe

r 16, 20

12. An

d

th e

n from

that da

te, it w a

s conti

nued to

J un e

11, 201

3.

T

he Co

urt reco

gnizes

that th

e respo

ndent

is pro se

and h

as take

n that

into

consid

eration o

whet

her or

not a co

ntinua

nce sho

uld be

gran te

d in th i

s matte

r. And

the

A

097-6

80-74

7 7

June 11

2013

illo:::::;. ;:;.::

..

4

...... .:


13/15t a

a

Co

urt

find

s th

at t

he r

esp

ond

ent

ha

s no

t de

mo

nst

rate

d th

at

bein

g r

epre

sen

ted

p

rose

warrantsa fu

rth

er c

ont

inua

nce

ofthis

ca

se.

As

pre

viou

sly

me

ntio

ned

, th

e re

sp

on d

ent

h

as

had

app

rox

im a

tely

tw

o ye

ars

to

gat

her

all t

he

doc

ume

nta

tion

n e

ces

sar

y to

pro

cee

d

wi

th h

is a

ppli

cati

on

for a

dju

stm

ent

o f

stat

us.

In f

act.

in

201

1, t

he r

esp

ond

en

t file

d a

re

qu

est

with

the

C o

urt

req

ues

ting

an

exp

ed

ited

he a

rin

g. T

ha

t re

que

st w

as

den

ied

by

the

Co

urt

bec

aus

e o

f the

C

ourt

's d

ock

et.

The

C o

urt

find

s, a

ga

in t

he

resp

ond

en

t ha

s

bee

n g

iven

su

ffici

ent

eno

ugh

tim

e,

app

rox

im a

tely

two

ye

ars

, to

pre

par

e hi

s ca

se

to

s

ubm

it t

he p

rop

er d

oc

ume

nts

to

the

Cou

rt t

o m

eet

h is

bur

den

o

fpro

of.

Add

itio

nall

y, t

he

Cou

rt f

inds

re

spo

nde

nt h

as

bee

n g

iven

su

ffici

ent

eno

ugh

tim

e t

o fin

d a

n a

ttorn

ey

o r

so

me

one

e ls

e to

rep

res

ent

h im

wh

o is

qu

alifi

ed

purs

ua

nt to

t he

Bo

ard

's r

egu

latio

ns .

bu

t

has

no

t. B

ase

d u

pon

th

e fa

cts

and

ev

iden

ce

in

t

his

cas

e, th

e C

ou

rt fin

ds

re s

pon

den

t

has

fa i

led

to e

sta

blis

h go

od

ca u

se

war

ran

ting

a f

urth

er c

ont

inua

nc

e in

this

ca

se.

Th

e

Co

urt a

lso

tak

es

into

con

sid

era t

ion

tha

t if

it co

ntin

ued

th

e ca

se ,

th e

ne

xt a

vail

able

da

te

wou

ld

b

e

2

015

. T

hat

w o

uld

me

an

mor

e th

an

app

rox

im a

tely

five

ye

ars

wo

uld

ha v

e

pas sed since respondent sh ould have been ready to go fo rw ard

on

this case. Forthe

a

bov

e st

ate

d re

aso

ns ,

the

Co

urt

find

s th

at a

co

ntin

uan

ce

is n

ot w

arr

ante

d a

nd

res

pon

den

t h

as f

aile

d to

est

abl

ish

go o

d ca

use

. T

he

refo

re,

his

re q

ues

t fo

r a c

ont

inu

anc

e

i

s de

nie

d

as

a

m at

ter

o f d

iscr

etio

n.

Th

e n

ext

issu

e is

wh

eth

er o

r no

t th

e re

sp

ond

ent'

s ap

plic

atio

n f

or

ad

just

men

t o

f sta

tus

sh o

uld

be

gra

nte

d.

Th

e C

ou

rt pr

evi

ous

ly m

ent

ione

d t

hat

the

res

pon

den

t's

app

lica

tion

fo r

ad

just

me

nt o

f s ta

tus

ha

s no

t b

een

com

ple

ted

pr

ope

rly i

n th

at t

he

Cou

rt d

oes

no

t ha

ve

the

af

fida

vit

of su

ppo

rt p

rop

erly

co

mpl

ete

d w

ith t

he m

os

t re

cen

t ta

x re

turn

s fo

r th

e

s

pon

sor

and

co

-sp

ons

or.

And

th

ere f

ore

the

res

pon

de

nt h

as

faile

d to

m

eet

his

bu r

den

o f

pr

oof

to s

how

th

at h

e is

no

t ina

dm

issi

ble

a

s

a

pu

blic

ch

arge

. T

he

Co

urt

also

fin

ds

A0

97

-68

0-7

47

8

Ju

ne

11 2

013

-

_j

t@

i:u: r

i


14/15

resp

on

den

t ha

s fa

iled

to

m e

et h

is b

urd

en o

f p

ro of

tha

t he

is

not

in a

dm i

ssib

le

on

th

e

me

dic

al g

rou

nds

be c

au

se t

he m

ed

ica

l ex

ami

nati

on

that

he

sub

mit

ted

is o

ver

tw o

ye

ars

o

ld a

nd i

t is

only

va

lid f

or a

ppr

oxim

at

ely

on e

ye

ar p

urs

uan

t t o

r eg

ula

tion

s at

24 5

o f

the

Ac

t.

T

he

refo

re,

the

Co

urt f

inds

th

e re

spo

nde

nt s

ap

plic

atio

n fo

r a

djus

tm e

nt

of

s

tatu

s sh

oul

d b

e pr

ete

rm it

ted

and

de

nie

d.

Th

e n

ext

is s

ue t

he

Cou

rt lo

oks

at

is w

he

ther

o r

not

th e

re s

pon

den

t w

ill

q

uali

fy fo

r vo

lun

tary

de

par

ture

. T

he

Cou

rt fi

nds

the

re s

po

nde

nt w

oul

d n

ot q

ual

ify f

or

vo

lun

tary

de

part

ure

be c

aus

e t

he C

ou

rt is

co

nsid

erin

g th

e r

esp

ond

ent

s r

equ

est

d

epa

rtur

e a

t the

co

ncl

usio

n

of

pr

oce

edin

gs.

T h

ere

fo re

th

e re

spo

nde

nt

has

to e

sta

blis

h

th

at h

e h

as

bee

n a

p er

so n

o f

goo

d m

ora

l ch

ara

cte r

du

ring

the

re

quir

ed

peri

od

o

f

ti

me.

In

this

ca s

e,

the

res

pon

den

t ha

s tw

o c

onv

icti

ons

fo r

for g

ery

o f

a fi

nan

cial

ins

trum

en

t

on

D

ece

mb

er

1

5

2

008

, w

hich

th

e C

our

t ha

s pr

evio

usl

y fo

und

re

late

s to

cri

m es

inv

olv

ing

m

or

al tu

rp i

tude

an

d th

e C

our

t wi

ll fin

d t

hat

the

re s

pon

den

t ca

nno

t e

stab

lish

du

ring

the

required five year pe riodo f tim eth at he has beena person o f goodm ora lch ara c

te r

for

fiv

e y

ea rs

. A

nd

the

refo

re t

he

Cou

rt w

oul

d p

rete

rm it

a n

y ap

plic

atio

n f

or v

olun

ta r

y

de

par

ture

. A

ddit

iona

lly,

the

Co

urt

w o

uld

also

no

te t

hat

the

m a

xim

um

pe r

iod

of t

im e

tha

t

the

Cou

rt m

ay

gra

nt a

pe

rso

n fo

r v o

lun

tary

de

part

ure

a t t

he

con

clus

ion

of

rem

ova

l

pro

cee

din

gs i

s 60

da

ys .

Re

spo

nd

ent

indi

cate

d t

o th

e C

our

t t ha

t h

e co

uld

no

t d e

par

t the

Un

ited

Sta

tes

wit h

in

that

60

day

p e

riod

of

time

. T

her

efo

re t

he C

ou

rt a

lso

find

s

r

esp

ond

ent

has

fa i

led

to e

sta

blis

h th

at h

e w

oul

d ob

ey

an

ord

er g

ran

ting

him

vo

lun

tary

d

epa

rtur

e w

ithin

th e

re

quir

ed

per

iod

o f ti

me.

So

an

y a

ppli

cati

on

for

volu

nta

ry d

epa

rtur

e

w

oul

d h

ave

be e

n d

eni

ed b

y t

he C

ou

rt fo

r th

e re

aso

ns

sta

ted

abo

ve.

Res

pon

de

nt i

sse

ekin

g n

o o

ther

rel

ief f

rom

re m

ov

al.

A

cco

rdin

gly,

the

fo l

low

ing

ord

ers

sha

ll

be

en

te r

ed:

A0

97

-68

0-7

47

u

ne

11

20

13


15/15

O

RD

ER

IT

IS

H E

R EB

Y O

R D

ER

ED

th a

t re

spo

nde

nt s

re

que

st f

o r a

c o

ntin

uan

ce b

e

den

ied

.

IT I

S F

URT

HE

R O

R D

ER

ED

tha

t re

spo

nde

nt s

ap

plic

atio

n fo

r a

dju s

tm e

nt

of

stat

us p

urs

uan

t to

Se

ctio

n 24

5

of th

e Im

mi

gra t

io n

an d

N a

tio

nali

ty A

c t b

e p

rete

rm i

tted

and

de

nied

.

IT

IS

FU

RTH

ER

O R

DE

RE

D th

at

re sp

on

den

t sh

all

be r

emo

ve

d an

d

de

por

te d

from

th

e U

nite

d S

tate

s to

G a

bo

n ba

se d

up

on

the

ch a

rg e

c o

nta i

ned

in

th e

No

tice

to

App

ear

an d

th

e tw

o c

har

ges

co n

ta in

ed

on

the

Fo r

m

1-

261.

D

ATE

D:

Jun

e 1

1, 2

01

3

A09

7-

680

-74

7

D

EI

TRI

CH H

.

SIM

S

Im m

ig r

atio

n J

udg

e

10

Jun

e 1

1

201

3

Andre Luckman Ibrahim, A097 680 747 (BIA Jan. 28, 2015)

Documents

Transcript of Andre Luckman Ibrahim, A097 680 747 (BIA Jan. 28, 2015)