U.S.

Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office ofthe Clerk

5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Clrurch. Virginia 22041

MICHAEL J. CAMPISE, ESQUIRE Ferro & Cuccia 100 Lafayette Street, Ste. 201 New York, NY 10013-0000

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - NEW P.O. Box 1898 Newark, NJ 07101

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: SHIREESHA, REDDY

A078-722-997

Date of this notice: 5/23/2012

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

Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members: Miller, Neil P.

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Reddy Shireesha, A078 722 997 (BIA May 23, 2012)

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Decision of the Board oflmmigration Appeals

File:

A078 722 997 - Newark, NJ

Date:

MAY 2320\2

In re: REDDY SHIREESHA

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS MOTION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: APPLICATION: Reopening Michael J. Campise, Esquire

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

This case was last before the Board on December 18, 2009, when we dismissed the respondent's appeal of the Immigration Judge's decision finding the respondent inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(ll) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II), and therefore ineligible to adjust status under section 245(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1255(i). The respondent was found inadmissible because she left the United States in connection with a grant of advance parole. The respondent has filed an untimely motion to reopen her proceedings based upon a change in the law as reflected in

Matter ofArrabal/y,

25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012), where the

Board held that an alien who leaves the United States temporarily pursuant to a grant of advance parole does not make a "departure ... from the United States" within the meaning of section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(ll) of the Act. The Department of Homeland Security has not responded to the motion, which will be granted. 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(g)(3). Where there is a change in law relevant to an alien's proceedings, we may exercise our authority to reopen proceedings sua sponte. 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(a);

Matter of G-D-,

22 I&N Dec. 1132

(BIA 1999). As the respondent has presented evidence of a change in law that may impact her ability to seek relief from removal, we will grant the motion. We do not express an opinion on the merits of the respondent's entitlement to relief from removal. On remand, the Immigration Judge may receive any additional evidence he deems appropriate to the full resolution of this matter. ORDER: The motion to reopen is granted and the record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order and entry of a new decision.

(J L__---- HE BOARD

Cite as: Reddy Shireesha, A078 722 997 (BIA May 23, 2012)