Department of Justice
A 208-506-084
Date of this notice: 8/29/2016
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,
DorutL c
l1/v\)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Mann. Ana
Userteam: Docket
Date:
AUG 2 9 2016
APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:
CHARGE:
Notice:
Sec. 237(a)(l)(B), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(l)(B)] In the United States in violation of law
APPLICATION:
Voluntary departure
The respondent, a native and citizen of the Czech Republic, has filed a timely appeal from an
Immigration Judge's April 25, 2016, decision, ordering his removal from the United States. The
record will be remanded.
The Board reviews an Immigration Judge's findings of fact, including findings as to the
credibility of testimony and the likelihood of future events, under the "clearly erroneous"
standard. See 8 C.F.R. I003.l{d)(3)(i); Matter of Z-Z-0-, 26 l&N Dec. 586 (BIA 2015);
Matter of R-S-H-, 23 l&N Dec. 629 (BIA 2003); Matter of S-H-, 23 l&N Dec. 462 (BIA 2002).
The Board reviews questions of law, discretion, and judgment and all other issues in an appeal of
an Immigration Judge's decision de novo. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(ii).
The respondent, who is now represented by counsel, argues on appeal that he appeared pro se
before the Immigration Judge and did not understand the significance of an order of removal as
opposed to a grant of voluntary departure. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1240.ll(a)(2), Immigration
Judges have an affirmative duty to inform an alien in removal proceedings of his "apparent
eligibility" to apply for any form of relief under the Act, and to afford the alien an opportunity to
submit applications for relief during the removal hearing. See also Matter of Cordova, 22 l&N
Dec. 966, 970-71 (BIA 1999).
We acknowledge that the Immigration Judge complied with her duty under the regulations to
inform the respondent that he only appeared eligible for voluntary departure (Tr. at 15).
However, as the respondent did not have a meaningful understanding to make an informed
choice as to whether he wanted voluntary departure, and as the Immigration Judge did not
qualify the respondent for a grant of voluntary departure, we will remand the record to the
Immigration Judge to afford the respondent an opportunity to establish his eligibility for voluntary
departure, and any other form of relief from removal to which he may be entitled, and to enter a
new decision.
Cite as: Antonin Marholt, A208 506 084 (BIA Aug. 29, 2016)
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
. .
-
,.
ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings in
accordance with this opinion and the entry of a new decision.
2
Cite as: Antonin Marholt, A208 506 084 (BIA Aug. 29, 2016)
File: A208-506-084
In the Matter of
ANTONIN MARHOLT
RESPONDENT
)
)
)
)
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
CHARGES:
APPLICATIONS:
None.
Appear and served on respondent in person on March 4, 2016. The Notice to Appear
charges that the respondent is removable from the United States pursuant to Section
A208-506-084
237(a)(1 }(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act in that he remained in the United
signature
A208-506-084
VIRGINIA PEREZ-GUZMAN
Immigration Judge
' . ...
/Isl/
Immigration Judge VIRGINIA PEREZ-GUZMAN
A208-506-084