Saccone, Kurt R., Esq. Saccone & Dobosiewicz LLP 300 International Drive, Ste. 100 Williamsville, NY 14221

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk

5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 20530

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - BUF

130 Delaware Avenue, Room 203 Buffalo, NY 14202

Name: REDROVAN-QUINTEROS, LUIS ... A 087-513-649

Date of this notice: 6/18/2014

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

Enclosure

Panel Members: Wendtland, Linda S. Donovan, Teresa L. Pauley, Roger

Sincerely,

DonrtL c tVvu

Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Lulseges

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For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index/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: Luis Arturo Redrovan-Quinteros, A087 513 649 (BIA June 18, 2014)

. U.S. l>epartment of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Falls Church, Virginia 20530

File: A087 513 649 - Buffalo, NY

In re: LUIS ARTURO REDROV AN-QUINTEROS

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

APPEAL

Date:

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Kurt R. Saccone, Esquire

ON BEHALF OF OHS:

CHARGE:

Carol G. Bridge Assistant Chief Counsel

JUN 18 2014

Notice: Sec. 212(a)(6)(A)(i), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)] -Present without being admitted or paroled

Sec. 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I)] -Immigrant - no valid immigrant visa or entry document

APPLICATION: Adjustment of status

The respondent, a native and citizen of Ecuador, appeals the Immigration Judge's May 31, 2012, decision finding the respondent removable as charged and ineligible for adjustment of status. See section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). The record will be remanded.

The Board reviews an Immigration Judge's findings of fact, including credibility determinations and (under the law of the Circuit with jurisdiction over this case) the likelihood of future events, under a "clearly erroneous" standard. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.l(d)(3)(i); see Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012). We review all other issues, including questions of law, judgment, or discretion, under a de novo standard. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.l(d)(3)(ii).

The respondent acknowledges, and the record demonstrates, that on August 20, 2010, attorney Anne Doebler appeared in court, admitted the factual allegations contained in the respondent's Notice to Appear (Form I-862), and conceded his removability under sections 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ l 182(a)(6)(A)(i), (a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (Respondent's Br. at 1-2; Tr. at 6-7). However, the respondent correctly notes that, although the Immigration Judge stated that Ms. Doebler was representing the respondent, the Immigration Judge did not ask the respondent on the record whether Ms. Doebler was his attorney or whether she was authorized to speak for him (Respondent's Br. at 1; Tr. at 6). Further, we note that the record contains no .Form EOIR-28 (Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative Before the Immigration Court) demonstrating Ms. Doebler's formal representation of the

Imm

igrant & Refugee A

ppellate Center, LLC

| ww

w.irac.net

Cite as: Luis Arturo Redrovan-Quinteros, A087 513 649 (BIA June 18, 2014)

· A087 513 649

respondent before the Immigration Court. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.17(a); Immigration Court Practice Manual, Chapters 2.l(b), 2.3(c); see also Immigration Court Practice Manual, Chapters 2.3(e)-(f) (directing each attorney of record to submit a separate Form EOIR-28, and providing that "[ o ]nly individuals, not firms or offices, may represent parties before the Immigration Court").

Because the record does not demonstrate that Ms. Doebler formally represented the respondent, we find clear error in the Immigration Judge's finding, based in large part on Ms. Doebler's concessions of removability, that the respondent's removability was established by clear and convincing evidence (1.J. at 1). Accordingly, we will remand to the Immigration Judge to take new pleadings and make a new determination concerning the respondent's removability. On remand, the parties may present additional arguments and evidence concerning the respondent's removability, the Department of Homeland Security may introduce new allegations and charges of removability as appropriate, and the respondent may apply for any relief for which he may be eligible. We express no opinion concerning the respondent's removability or his ultimate eligibility for any form of relief from removal.

ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order and for the entry of a new decision.

Board Member Roger A. Pauley respectfully dissents. The initial hearing record for May 26, 2010, makes clear that the respondent speaks English, and the respondent's proceedings then and thereafter were conducted in English with no interpreter. Tr. at 1-3. And at the subsequent August 20, 2010, hearing, the respondent made no comment or objection when the Immigration Judge, in introductory remarks, stated that "Ann Dobler is representing the respondent." Tr. at 6. In light of this, there is no reason to permit the respondent to withdraw the concession of removability made on the respondent's behalf by Ms. Dobler. See Hoodho v. Holder, 558 F.3d 184, 190-92 (2d Cir. 2009). At that time, Ms. Dobler indicated that she was investigating his eligibility for cancellation of removal, which does not require that he had been admitted to the United States, as does his current desire to pursue adjustment of status. Tr. at 7-8.

2

Imm

igrant & Refugee A

ppellate Center, LLC

| ww

w.irac.net

Cite as: Luis Arturo Redrovan-Quinteros, A087 513 649 (BIA June 18, 2014)