Pierre, Janeen Jihan Hicks

Kuck Immigration Parners LLC

U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Imigration Review
Board of Immigation Appeals
Of fice of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pik, Suite 2000
Flls Church, Vrginia 22041
5701 Executive Center Drive, Suite 102
Charlotte, NC 28212-0000
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel - CHL
5701 Executive Ctr Dr., Ste 300
Charlotte, NC 28212
Name: C J Z, B ... A 939
Date of this notice: 8/30/2013
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Greer, Anne J.
Miller, Neil P.
Kendall-Clark, Molly
Sincerely,
Do c 1
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
schuckec
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For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished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: B-V-C-J-, AXXX XXX 939 (BIA Aug. 30, 2013)
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Offce fr Immigation Review
Decision of te Boad of Immigration Appeals
Falls Church, Virginh 22041
File: 939 - Chalotte, NC
In re: B V C -J
I RMOVAL PROCEEDIGS
APPEAL
Date:
ON BEHALF OF RSPONDENT: Jaeen Jihan Hicks Pierre, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS: Colleen E. Taylor
Assistat Chief Counsel
APPLICATION: Cacellation of removal
AUG 3 0 2013
The respondent, a female native ad citizen of Mexico, has appealed fom the Immigration
Judge's decision dated November 10, 2011, denying her application fr cancellation of removal
under section 240A(b) of the Imigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b). The
decision also grated voluntay depature. The respondent has fled a appeal brief In response,
the Depament of Homeland Security (DHS) has asked that we affrm the Immigration Judge's
decision. We will sustain the appeal, reverse and vacate the Immigration Judge's decision, ad
remad the case to the Immigration Judge fr the puose of updating the background checks.
We review Imigration Judges' fndings of fct fr clea error, but questions of law,
discretion, and judgment, ad all other issues in appeals, de novo. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3).
Since the respondent fled her application fr relief on or afer May 11, 2005, her application is
subject to the provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005.
The Immigration Judge denied the respondent's application afer concluding that the
respondent did not meet her burden to establish that her removal fom the United States would
result i exceptional ad extemely unusual hardship to her United States citizen children Cadi,
Yoselin, Lorenso, ad Otoniel, as required by statute (I.J. at 7-14). In denying the application,
the Immigration Judge also noted that he was disinclined to exercise his discretionay authority
to grat relief in fvor of the respondent (Id at 13-14). The respondent has challenged this
determination on appeal, aguing tat te Imigration Judge's decision did not assign adequate
probative weight to some of the evidence, including the medical opinion ad testimony fshed
by Dr. Debora Greimel regading the congenital hea defects of her two youngest, twin sons
Lorenso ad Otoniel, and the likely hadship that the respondent's removal would cause them.
The respondent also agues on appeal that the fcts in her case ae closely aalogous to those in
Mater of Recinas, 23 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2002), in that she is a undocumented alien with no
employment authorization or real assets, who has fur United States citizen children with no
health insurace other tha Medicaid, ad who will have difculty establishing ay comparable
economic stability ad access to adequate health cae in Mexico. See Respondent's Appeal Brief
at 4-7; Exh. 4 at 56, 119; Tr. at 45-57; see also Exh. 4 at 58, 127.
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: B-V-C-J-, AXXX XXX 939 (BIA Aug. 30, 2013)
939
We agree with the respondent's appellate arguments. The record confrms that Lorenso and
Otoniel were both bor with hea defcts. 1 Both conditions, according to Dr. Greimel, require
close monitoring fr symptoms ad may or may not worsen to the point of requiring corrective
surgery over time. See Exh. 4 at 56, 119. We also fnd that, while the respondent in this case has
family in Mexico, her sitation nevertheless is aalogous to that in Mater of Recinas, supra, as
she is a single mother of limited economic means who is supporting her fve children, including
fur United States citizens, to of whom have medical conditions. Given the totality of the
circumstaces presented in this case, we fnd that the record contains sufcient evidence to
establish that the respondent's removal fom the United States will result in exceptional and
extemely unusual hadship to her qualifing relatives. See Mater of Recinas, supra, at 4 72
(ruling that an analysis of hardship requires that te hardship fctors be assessed in their totality).
We also disagree with the Immigration Judge' s basis fr declining to exercise discretion in
fvor of the respondent. The Immigration Judge stated in his decision that "[t]he fct that the
respondent is doing very little to become a productive member of society here in the United
States is a strong negative discretionary fctor that contibutes to" the Immigration Judge' s
disinclination to grant relief in the exercise of discretion (I.J. at 13). The Immigration Judge
frther stated that the respondent' s qualifing relatives "might be better of in Mexico," where
they would have the support of the respondent's extensive faily (Id). We fnd that these
reasons to deny relief in the exercise of discretion were inappropriate. We frther fnd that, on
balance, the respondent is deserving of cacellation of removal as a matter of discretion.
Accordingly, the fllowing orders shall be entered.
ORDER: The respondent's appeal is sustained ad the Immigration Judge' s decision dated
November 10, 2011, is reversed ad vacated.
FURTHER ORER: Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(6), the record is remanded to the
Immigration Judge fr the purpose of allowing the DHS the opportunity to complete or update
identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or exainations, and fther proceedings, if
necessary, and fr the entry of an order as provided by 8 C.F.R. 1003.47(h).
THE BOARD
1 Specifcally, Lorenso was bor with a small secudum atrial septal defct, while Otoniel was
bor with a small apical muscula ventricula septa! defct. See Exh. 4 at 58, 127.
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: B-V-C-J-, AXXX XXX 939 (BIA Aug. 30, 2013)