Hinojosa, Roberto M., Esq.

Law Ofice of Roberto M. Hinojosa

2020 S.W. Freeway, Suite 220
Houston, TX 77098
Name: OBI, STANLEY ANOZIE
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Offce fr Immigration Review
Board of Immigation Appeals
Ofce of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church, Vrginia 20530
OHS/ICE Ofce of Chief Counsel - HOU
126 Norhpoint Drive, Suite 2020
Houston, TX 77060
A 210-114-098
Date of this notice: 6/9/2014
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Hofman! Sharon
Guendelsberger, John
Manuel, Elise
Sincerely,
DG c a
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Lulseges
Usertea m: Docket
-
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Stanley Anozie Obi, A210 114 098 (BIA June 9, 2014)
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review
Falls Church, Virginia 20530
File: A210 114 098 - Houston, TX
In re: STANLEY ANOZIE OBI
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
APPEAL
Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Date: JUN 0 9 2014
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Robero M. Hinojosa, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS: Kimani R. Eason
Assistant Chief Counsel
APPLICATION: Terination
Te respondent, a native ad citizen of Nigeria whose sttus was adjusted to that of a lawfl
permaent resident on September 27, 2011, appeals the decision of the Immigation Judge dated
April 18, 2013. The Immigation Judge denied te respondent's motion to terinate proceedings
and fund the respondent removable as charged under section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). As the respondent did not apply fr any fr
of relief, the Immigration Ju
d
ge ordered his removal
f
om this country. The record will be
remaded to the Immigration Judge fr
f
rher proceedings.
We review Immigration Judges' fndings of fct fr clea eror, but questions of law,
discretion, ad judgment, and all other issues in appeals, de novo. 8 C.F.R. 1003. l(d)(3).
On appeal, the respondent argues that the Immigration Judge erred in denying his motion to
terminate proceedings. See Immigation Judge's June 17, 2013, Order on Motion. As an initial
matter, we agree with the Immigration Judge that although the respondent presented evidence
that he had fled a writ of habeas corus with the Texas courts, the 2012 conviction underlying
his removability remained fnal and e
f
ective fr immigation purposes. See Matter of Adetiba,
20 I&N Dec. 506, 508 (BIA 1992) ("The possibility of a decision on any post-conviction motion
that has been
f
led does not afct our fnding that the respondent is deportable. "). The
fct that
an alien may be pursuing post-conviction relief on the basis of Padilla v. Kentuck, 559 U.S. 356
(2010), does not a
f
ect the conviction's fnality fr fderal immigration puroses. We reject the
respondent's contention that a writ of habeas corus based on a Padilla claim is analogous to a
direct appeal, such that the conviction is not
f
nal fr immigration puoses.
We note that the respondent did not request a continuance at the fnal hearing. Moreover, a
respondent's desire to seek post-conviction relief does not amount to "good cause" fr a
continuance. See Cabral v. Holder, 632 F.3d 886, 890 (5th Cir. 2011). Te respondent's
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Stanley Anozie Obi, A210 114 098 (BIA June 9, 2014)
A210 114 098
conviction evidently remains undisturbed, as he has yet to indicate that he has received a vacatur.
Thus, his conviction is val
i
d fr the purpose of these removal proceedings.
However, the respondent also argues on appeal that the Depament of Homeland Security
did not meet its burden to establish that his 2012 conviction is fr a crime involving moral
turpitude. See Resp. Brief at 6. Te Immigration Judge denied te respondent's motion to
terminate proceedings, fnding that he was convicted under section 22.01 of the Texas Penal
Code fr intentionally and knowingly causing bodily injury to a family member.
See Immigrtion Judge's June 17, 2013, Order on Motion at 2.
Upon review of the record, we fnd remand is waranted as tere is insuffcient
f
ct-fnding
to allow us to review the removability determination. Contrary to the Immigration Judge's
statement, the respondent's order of defrred adjudication identi
f
es the ofense fr which he was
convicted only as "Assault-Family Member". We note that neither the complaint, the
infrmation, nor te order of defrred adjudication identifes the section of law under which the
respondent was convicted. In determining whether a crime involves moral turpitude, the frst
step in the analysis is to look to the statute of conviction to determine whether the crime
categorically involves moral turpitude. See Nino v. Holder, 690 F.3d 691, 694-95 (5th Cir. 20 I 2).
As the record does not establish under which statute the respondent was conv
i
cted, we fnd
remand necessary fr fher fct fnding.
Additionally, we note that the Immigration Judge appears to have relied on the Infrmation
included in the respondent's record of conviction in making his determination. Given recent
Supreme Court and Fifh Circuit decisions raising questions about the application of the
categorical analysis versus the modifed categorical analysis, we f
nd a more thorough
aiculation of the Imigration Judge's determination that the respondent is barred
f
om relief is
necessary on remand. See generally Descamps v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013); Silva-Trevino
v. Holder, 742 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 2014).
Under the circumstaces, we fnd it appropriate to remand fr fher
f
ct-fnding and a more
clear statement of the basis of the Immigration Judge's decision regarding the respondent's
removability and eligibility fr relief
f
om removal. 1 Accordingly, the fllowing order will be
entered.
ORER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge fr frther proceedings
consistent with the fregoing opinion and fr the entry of a new decision.
1 The respondent also asers that the Immigration Judge ered in fnding that his 09
v
iction ;-i

-
fr an aggavated felony (I.J. at 3). We note that the Immigration Judge- ' decision does ,not
specif under which section of the aggravated flony defnition she made this determin
.
a
ti
o
n, and
does contain any analysis regarding this issue. We agree with the resp
on
den
t
th
a
t

there is no
support fr an aggravated flony fnding.

2
.
,, .
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Stanley Anozie Obi, A210 114 098 (BIA June 9, 2014)
,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
HOUSTON. TEXAS
File: A210-114-098
In the Matter of
April 18, 2013
STANLEY ANOZIE OBI
)
)
)
)
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
RESPONDENT
CHARGES: Section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Act: convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude committed within five years after admission for
which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed.
APPLICATIONS: None.
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ROBERTO M. HINOJOSA
2020 Southwest Freeway 220
Houston, Texas 77098
ON BEHALF OF OHS: KIMANI EASON
Department of Homeland Security
126 Northpoint, Room 2020
Houston, Texas 77060
ORAL DECISION AND ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE
The respondent is a male native and citizen of Nigeria. On January 30,
2012, the Department of Homeland Security (OHS) issued a Notice to Appear (NTA)
charging that the respondent is subject to removal pursuant to Section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) of
the Act. On March 20, 2013, the respondent appeared with counsel, admitted to the
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
factual allegations contained in the NTA, paragraph 1, 2, 3, but denied factual allegation
4, and denied the ground of removability. On that day, the Government served on the
respondent's counsel the conviction document as well as the record of deportable alien.
The Government's submission was marked and entered into evidence as Exhibit 2 in
this case. Based on the Government's submission of Exhibit 2, the Court sustained the
ground of removabilit, as well as the factual allegations as alleged in the NT A
On April 4, 2013, the respondent submitted a motion to terminate. Prior to
the submission of the motion to terminate, the respondent was given the opportunity to
file any and all applications for relief from removal. Specifically, on the master calendar
hearing of March 20, 2013, the respondent, through counsel, requested a continuance
to allow the resolution of a writ that the respondent's counsel allegedly filed for purposes
of vacating the criminal conviction allegedly based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
However, respondent's counsel did not submit any material, documentation or evidence
to show the content of the writ that is currently pending. The only thing that the
respondent's counsel submitted was a docket sheet of the First Court of Appeals of
Texas indicating that there is a pending hearing regarding the respondent's motion.
While the Court had no clear record or evidence of what the writ was actually fr, and
there is no other evidence whatsoever to show that there is reason for the Court to
continue this case or otherwise set it over to await the outcome of the writ the Court did
not grant the respondent's motion to terminate and the individual hearing, therefore,
took place today on April 18, 2013.
On March 20, 2013, the respondent's counsel was also advised that today
would be the individual hearing for any and all applications for relief from removal.
Specifically, the Court ordered that any application for relief must be filed on or before
April 4, 2013, or else it would be deemed waived or abandoned. Respondent is from
A210-114-098 2 April 18, 2013
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Nigeria, and the respondent had not submitted any applications for relief, such as
asylum, withholding of removal, Convention Against Torture protection, from Nigeria.
Furthermore, the respondent did not submit any other application, such as cancellation
of removal, waiver of inadmissibility, or any other relief under the Act. On the day of the
individual hearing, the respondent's counsel also confirmed that based on the
respondent's criminal conviction, which is a crime involving moral turpitude and an
aggravated felony, the respondent is statutorily ineligible for any form of relief at this
time.
The respondent was also questioned by the Court and he acknowledged
that he understood his counsel's action and otherwise personally is aware of the
situation surrounding his removal, as well as the lack of any application for relief. While
the respondent has been found removable as charged, and the respondent had not
submitted any application for relief and is not statutorily eligible for any form of relief, at
this time, the Court will issue the following order.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondent be ordered removed from
the United States to Nigeria. Should the respondent fail to comply with the final order of
removal to Nigeria, the respondent shall be subject to additional civil and criminal
penalty. Specifically, the respondent could be fined up to $5,000 or at an amount set
specifically by the Court if respondent failed to comply with the final order of this Court.
In this case, the order as set by the Court would be $5,000, and the respondent could
be subject to additional criminal penalty for his failure to comply with the Court's order.
Please see the next page for electronic
signature
A210-114-098 3 April 18, 2013
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
I
A210-114-098
MIMI YAM
Immigration Judge
4 April 18, 2013
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
1 1
//s//
Inigration Judge MIMI YAM
yam on August 12, 2013 at 3:35 PM GMT
A210-114-098 5 April 18, 2013
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t