Pollock, Scott D., Esq. Scott D. Pollock & Associates, P.C. 105 W. Madison, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60602

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals Q{fice of the Clerk

5/07 leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 2204/

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - CHI 525 West Van Buren Street Chicago, IL 60607

Name: ARANA-SANCHEZ, CALIXTO RE ... A 205-278-468

Date of this notice: 3/14/2016

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

Enclosure

Panel Members:

O'Leary, Brian M.

Sincerely,

DGnltL {! l1/Vt.)

Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index/

Imm

igrant & Refugee A

ppellate Center, LLC

| ww

w.irac.net

Cite as: Calixto Rene Arana-Sanchez, A205 278 468 (BIA March 14, 2016)

U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A205 278 468 - Chicago, IL

In re: CALIXTO RENE ARANA-SANCHEZ

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

APPEAL

Date:

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Scott D. Pollock, Esquire

MAR 1 4 2015

The respondent, a native and citizen of Guatemala, appeals from the decision of the Immigration Judge, dated November 10, 2014, denying the respondent's request for a continuance and ordering the respondent removed to Guatemala. 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). The Board reviews questions of law, discretion, and judgment and all other issues in appeals from decisions oflmmigration Judges de novo. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.l(d)(3)(ii).

On appeal, the respondent urges that remanded proceedings are warranted so that he may pursue post-conclusion voluntary departure pursuant to section 240B(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b). We agree. The record reflects that the respondent appeared pro se before the Immigration Judge, and the Immigration Judge, after questioning the respondent regarding the contents of the Notice to Appear (Form 1-862) and the respondent's family ties in the United States, determined that the respondent was not eligible for any relief from removal. The Immigration Judge asked the respondent: "did you want to request voluntary departure or do you want me to order you removed then you can appeal?" (Tr. at 43). The Immigration Judge then stated that the maximum time she could give the respondent for voluntary departure was 120 days, after which the respondent stated: "I would accept the appeal?" The Immigration Judge then informed the respondent that he would order the respondent removed (Tr. at 43).

The record indicates that the respondent, who entered the United States in 2008, may be eligible not just for pre-conclusion voluntary departure, as the Immigration Judge indicated, but also for post-conclusion voluntary departure. Matter of Cordova, 22 I&N Dec. 966, 970 n.4 (BIA 1999) (holding that an Immigration Judge must advise a respondent of the forms of relief for which he or she is apparently eligible, including voluntary departure). Because it is not clear that the Immigration Judge informed the respondent of his potential eligibility for post-conclusion voluntary departure, we conclude that a remand is warranted for the Immigration Judge to determine whether the respondent is eligible for voluntary departure and if so, to provide the respondent with another opportunity to pursue voluntary departure, either pre-conclusion or post-conclusion, and further to advise the respondent regarding the difference between the two forms of voluntary departure. See sections 240B(a), (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1229c(a), (b); Matter of Arguelles-Campos, 22 l&N Dec. 811, 817 (BIA 1999).

Imm

igrant & Refugee A

ppellate Center, LLC

| ww

w.irac.net

Cite as: Calixto Rene Arana-Sanchez, A205 278 468 (BIA March 14, 2016)

I I

A205 278 468

Accordingly, the following order will be entered.

ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing decision.

2

Imm

igrant & Refugee A

ppellate Center, LLC

| ww

w.irac.net

Cite as: Calixto Rene Arana-Sanchez, A205 278 468 (BIA March 14, 2016)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

File: A205-278-468

In the Matter of

CALIXTO RENE ARANA-SANCHEZ

RESPONDENT

) ) ) )

November 10, 2014

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

CHARGES: Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the INA - present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.

APPLICATIONS: Motion to continue.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: PRO SE

ON BEHALF OF OHS: RENATA PARRAS

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

The respondent is a citizen and native of Guatemala. He arrived in the

United States at or near an unknown place on or about an unknown date. He was not

admitted or paroled by an Immigration officer. The Department of Homeland Security

initiated removal proceedings by issuing a Notice to Appear on September 26, 2012,

charging the respondent under Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the I NA, in that he is present in

the United States without being admitted or paroled.

At a hearing on November 14, 2013, the respondent appeared and

Imm

igrant & Refugee A

ppellate Center, LLC

| ww

w.irac.net

requested more time to speak to an attorney. The Court granted his motion for a

continuance and scheduled his case for October 7, 2014 at 1 :00 p.m. at the Chicago

Immigration Court. The Court on its own motion rescheduled the respondent's case for

November 10, 2014 at 1 :00 p.m. at the Chicago Immigration Court.

On November 10, 2014 1 the respondent appeared without counsel. He

admitted to the factual allegations contained in the Notice to Appear and conceded

removability as charged. The Court designated his country of citizenship, Guatemala,

as the country of removal. Therefore, based on the respondent's admissions and

concession, the Court finds that alienage and removability have been established by

clear and convincing evidence as required by Section 240(c)(3) of the INA at U.S.C.

Section 1229A(c)(3). See also 8 C.F.R. Section 1240.B[(a/c)].

At the hearing, the respondent requested a motion to continue in order for

him to be able to pay what he owes his criminal attorney because he was arrested on

September of 2013 for an aggravated DUI. He was sentenced on February 19, 2014.

The OHS stated to the Court that he was sentenced to the Department of Corrections

for 60 days, 125 hours of public service, and 12 months of probation which would be

ending approximately February 2015. The respondent, on the other hand, stated to the

Court that he was arrested for DUI on or about September 2013 and that instead of 60

days at the Department of Corrections, his attorney was able to arrange a plea where

he would complete one month of house arrest still with one-year probation. When

asked if he had completed or satisfied the sentence of the court, the respondent stated

that he had. However, later when the Court advised him of the DHS's statement as to

his conviction on February 19, 2014 1 he then did agree that he is still under probation

and that his case, his criminal case, is still pending. The respondent also stated that he

would like to pay off some debts and wanted to ask the Court for more time to be able to

A205-278-468 2 November 10, 2014

Imm

igrant & Refugee A

ppellate Center, LLC

| ww

w.irac.net

pay those debts.

The Court finds that respondent's motion to continue is not timely. He is

requesting it the day of his hearing. The Court finds that the respondent entered into

proceedings with the issuance of the Notice to Appear on September 26, 2012. He has

been in removal proceedings since that period of time. At his first hearing, on October

17, 2012, while he was at the Chicago Detention Center, he requested more time also

to speak to an attorney. He was able to bond out and then continue in the non-detained

court in Chicago on November 14, 2013, where he appeared at 9:00 a.m. He requested

at that time a continuance so that he may speak to an attorney. The Court granted that

continuance for a later date of November 10, 2014 at 1 :00 p.m. at the Chicago

Immigration Court. The Court finds that the respondent has basically been in

proceedings for a period of two years, and the fact that he was arrested and sentenced

and convicted to an aggravated DUI while he was in removal proceedings and would

like time to pay off his criminal attorney does not establish good cause, and, therefore,

the continuance will be denied.

The respondent has not asked for any relief from removal including

voluntary departure. Accordingly:

ORDERS

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent be removed to Guatemala on

the charges of the Notice to Appear.

Please see the next page for electronic

signature

A205-278-468 3 November 10, 2014

Imm

igrant & Refugee A

ppellate Center, LLC

| ww

w.irac.net

A205-278-468

VIRGINIA PEREZ-GUZMAN Immigration Judge

4 November 10, 2014

Imm

igrant & Refugee A

ppellate Center, LLC

| ww

w.irac.net

/Isl/

Immigration Judge VIRGINIA PEREZ-GUZMAN

perezv on February 23, 2015 at 5:32 PM GMT

A205-278-468 5 November 10, 2014

Imm

igrant & Refugee A

ppellate Center, LLC

| ww

w.irac.net