U.S.

Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board oflmmigrahon Appeals
Office of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, S11ite 2000
Falls Church. Virginia 220./ I

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - MIA

333 South Miami Ave., Suite 200
Miami, FL 33130

Name: HOWELL, DAMONE

A 099-250-547

Date of this notice: 10/21/2015

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

Don.rt.L Cr11i./LJ
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:

O'Leary, Brian M.

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
Cite as: Damone Howell, A099 250 547 (BIA Oct. 21, 2015)

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

Bullock, Gareth Howard

Bullock Practice, P.A.
5400 S. University Drive, Suite 301
Davie, FL 33328

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Offic.e for Immigration Review

!

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

<I

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A099 250 547 - Miami, FL

Date:

OCT 21 2015

In re: DAMONE HOWELL

APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Gareth Bullock, Esquire
APPLICATION: Continuance

The respondent, a native and citizen of Jamaica, appeals from the Immigration Judge's
decision dated March 31, 2014, denying her motion for a continuance. The record will be
remanded.
The Board defers to the factual findings of an Immigration Judge, unless they are clearly
erroneous, but it retains independent judgment and discretion, subject to applicable governing
standards, regarding questions of law and the application of a particular standard of law to those
facts. 8 C.F.R. 1003. l(d)(3)(i), (ii).
On appeal, the respondent argues that she established good cause for a continuance to apply
for special rule cancellation pursuant to section 240A(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act; 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(2), inasmuch as the United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services denied her Form 1-360. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.29; Matter ofPerez-Andrade, 19 I&N Dec.
433 (BIA 1987) (the decision to grant or deny a continuance is within the discretion of the
Immigration Judge, if good cause is shown, and that decision will not be overturned on appeal
unfess it appears that the respondent was deprived of a full and fair hearing). Although these
proceedings had been pending before the Immigration Judge since 2009, and the respondent did
not submit an application for special rule cancellation of removal (Tr. at 77-78)., we will, in the
exercise of discretion, remand these proceedings for the respondent to establish eligibility for
special rule cancellation of removal.
Accordingly, the following order will be entered.
ORDER: The record is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing
opinion.

Cite as: Damone Howell, A099 250 547 (BIA Oct. 21, 2015)

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

File: A099-250-547

March 31, 2014

In the Matter of
)

DAMONE HOWELL

)
)
)

RESPONDENT

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

CHARGES:
APPLICATIONS:
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: CHANDLER HOWELL
ON BEHALF OF OHS: CHRISTINA M. MARTYAK

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

The respondent was issued a Notice to Appear in her record of proceedings at
Exhibit 1. The Government states respondent is not a citizen or national of the
United States, but a native and citizen of Jamaica admitted into the United States as a
visitor 8-2 on the 25 of June 2001, but who remained beyond December 24, 2001 in
violation of her authorization to remain in the United States. There is no contesting the
allegations of fact in this matter. While she may have gotten extensions beyond
24 December 2001, the fact remains that the respondent has not been authorized to
remain in the United States for the entire length of time as a non-immigrant. I find she is
1

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

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
MIAMI, FLORIDA

removable under Section 237(a)(1 )(8) of the Immigration and Nationality-Act, in that
after entering as a non-immigrant to remain for a time longer than permitted.

17 November 2008, and it was filed with the court on 14 January 2009. On that date,
the Court confirmed the receipt of her Notice to Appear, and she was advised of the
allegations and rights of removal, and the matter was reset for her to give her a chance
to seek counsel. The respondent in this case did appear with counsel, and the Court
was informed July 2009 that the respondent was seeking adjustment based on a
pending application based on a stepfather, and the Court had reset the matter from
July 1, 2009 to October 7, 2009 to allow for attorney preparation time.
In short, the Court has been continuing this case for the respondent for one
reason or another since March 11, 2009. The Court has continued this case for six
years, as the Court was being informed that the respondent would seek some form of
relief for another period. The last continuances have been granted because the Court
had been informed that the respondent was having an 1-360 filed, but that was denied,
and the most recent continuances for the Government to consider a request for
prosecutorial discretion. The Court has no authority on the request for prosecutorial
discretion. But having examined the submission, the Court would note that it was filed
with the Department of Homeland Security, and they have informed counsel that that
request was not going to be exercised. The respondent could request voluntary
departure, but the Court has been informed that she would not seek voluntary departure
in the alternative. It is thus ordered, as no relief is available to the respondent, it is
ordered that she be removed from the United States to Jamaica on the charge
contained in the Notice to Appear. And it will be dated this 31 March 2014.
The Court has been asked to consider the respondent's request for prosecutorial

A099-250-547

March 31, 2014

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

The respondent was issued the Notice to Appear by regular mail on

discretion with a view towards allowing this case some type of admin closure based on
prior Board decision, but in examining the materials, I would find that cause has not

Please see the next page for electronic

signature

A099-250-547

TEOFILO CHAPA
Immigration Judge

March 31, 2014

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

been shown to warrant such exercise.

/Is//
Immigration Judge TEOFILO CHAPA

A099-250-547

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

chapat on February 9, 2015 at 12:04 PM GMT

March 31, 2014