In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed a decision of an immigration judge in Charlotte, North Carolina, finding she lacked jurisdiction to consider a bond motion filed by a detainee who had been transferred to Lumpkin, Georgia. The Board concluded that Section 236 of the INA contains no language limiting immigration judges’ authority to hear bond cases due to the geographic location of the respondent. The decision was issued by Vice Chairman Charles Adkins-Blanch and joined by Member John Guendelsberger and Member Sharon Hoffman.
Note: this decision was vacated and superseded by Matter of Cerda Reyes, 26 I&N Dec. 528 (BIA 2015).
Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed a decision of an immigration judge in Charlotte, North Carolina, finding she lacked jurisdiction to consider a bond motion filed by a detainee who had been transferred to Lumpkin, Georgia. The Board concluded that Section 236 of the INA contains no language limiting immigration judges’ authority to hear bond cases due to the geographic location of the respondent. The decision was issued by Vice Chairman Charles Adkins-Blanch and joined by Member John Guendelsberger and Member Sharon Hoffman.
Note: this decision was vacated and superseded by Matter of Cerda Reyes, 26 I&N Dec. 528 (BIA 2015).
Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed a decision of an immigration judge in Charlotte, North Carolina, finding she lacked jurisdiction to consider a bond motion filed by a detainee who had been transferred to Lumpkin, Georgia. The Board concluded that Section 236 of the INA contains no language limiting immigration judges’ authority to hear bond cases due to the geographic location of the respondent. The decision was issued by Vice Chairman Charles Adkins-Blanch and joined by Member John Guendelsberger and Member Sharon Hoffman.
Note: this decision was vacated and superseded by Matter of Cerda Reyes, 26 I&N Dec. 528 (BIA 2015).
Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
426 Old Salem Road Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Name: CERDA REYES, ARMANDO U.S. Department of Justice Executive Ofce for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Qice of the Clerk 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Fals Church, Virginia 20530 OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - CHL 5701 Executive Ctr Dr., Ste 300 Charlotte, NC 28212 A 029-923-675 Date of this notice: 10/7/2014 Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case. Enclosure Panel Members: Adkins-Blanch, Charles K. Guendelsberger, John Hofman, Sharon Sincerely, Donna Carr Chief Clerk Userteam: 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: Armando Cerda Reyes, A029 923 675 (BIA Oct. 7, 2014) U.S. Department of Justice Executive Ofce for bigration Review Falls Church, Virginia20530 File: A029 923 675-Charlotte, NC In re: ARNDO CERDA REYES l BOND PROCEEDINGS APPEAL Decision of the Board of bigration Appeals Date: ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Helen Parsonage, Esquire AMICUS CURIAE: ON BEHALF OF DHS: Trina A. Realmuto, National Immigration Project of te National Lawyers Guild, et al. Scott D. Criss Assistant Chief Counsel APPLICATION: Custody redetermination The respondent appeals from the Immigration Judge's March 13, 2014, decision determining that she lacked jurisdicton under 8 C.F .R. 1003 .19( c) to consider his request fr a change in custody status. The reasons for the Immigration Judge's determination are set frth i a written decision prepared on April 22, 2014. The appeal will be dismissed as moot. We review for clear error the findings of fact, including the determination of credibility, made by the Immigration Judge. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i). We review de novo all other issues, including whether the parties have met the relevant burden of proof, and issues of discretion. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(ii). The instant appeal requires us to determine whether the rules for applying fr a bond redetermination at 8 C.F.R. 1003.19(c) are jurisdictional. 8 C.F.R. 1003.19 reads in pertinent part: (a) Custody and bond determinations made by the service pursuant to 8 CFR part 1236 may be reviewed by an Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 CFR part 1236. ( c) Applications fr the exercise of autority to review bond determinations shall be made to one of the following offices, in the designated order: (1) I the respondent is detained, to the Immigration Court having jurisdiction over te place of detention; (2) To the Immigration Court having administative control over the case; or (3) To the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge for designation of an appropriate Immigration Court. The plain language of the regulation does not speak in ters of a tribunal's authority to hea the case. Instead, te regulation at 8 C.F.R. 1003.19(c) speaks of"applicatons fr the exercise of authority." This wording suggests that this regulation does not give the court its authority to hear the case. Rather, a litigant complying with this regulation is merely requestng that the 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: Armando Cerda Reyes, A029 923 675 (BIA Oct. 7, 2014) A029 923 675 court exercise its preexisting authority to hear the bond case. Indeed, 8 C.F.R. 1003.19(a) directs the reader to the regulation in which an Immigration Judge's autority to hear bond cases is delineated-8 C.F.R. 1236. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 1236(d), in t, states that a Immigration Judge is "authorized to exercise the authorit in section 23 6 of the Act (or section 241(a)(l ) of the Act as designated prior to April 1, 1997 in the case of an alien in deportation proceedings) to detain the alien in custody, release the alien, and determine the amount of bond ... " (emphasis added). This laguage makes clear that the authority to hear bond cases comes fom the statute itself. Section 236 of the Act contains no language limiting an Immigaton Judge's authority to hear a bond case due to te geographic location of the alien. Rather tan outlining the Immigration Court's jurisdiction, the regulations at 8 C.F .R. 1003 .19( c) merely dictate where the alien should fle a request fr a custody redeterminaton. 1 However, the records of this agency indicate that the respondent received a bond hearing at te Lumpkin Immigration Court at the Stewart Detention Center on March 27, 2014, afer the DRS moved him to that location. The respondent did not appeal fom te March 27, 2014, bond decision rendered by an Immigration Judge at the Lumpkin Immigration Court in the Stewart Detention Center. Thus, his earlier application for a bond hearing befre the Charlotte Immigration Court is now moot. Accordingly, the following order will be entered. ORDER: Te respondent's appeal is dismissed as moot. . FOR THE BOARD 1 While the regulations suggest that a bond hearing will usually be held in the location where te alien is detained, policies related to the scheduling of bond hearings, including determining the location of the hearing, are properly within the province of the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ). 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: Armando Cerda Reyes, A029 923 675 (BIA Oct. 7, 2014) UITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMIGRATION REVIEW UNITED STATES IMIGRATION COURT CHOTE, NORTH CAROLINA I THE MATTER OF CERDA REYES, Annando Respondent ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Helen Parsonage, Esq. Elliot Morgan Parsonage, PLLC 426 Old Salem Road Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 ) I BOND PROCEEDIN.GS ) ) File No. A 029-923-675 ) ) April 22, 2014 ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERENT: Ofce of Chief Cousel Depatent of Homeland Securit . 5701 ExEicutive Center Drive, Suite 300 Charlot, North Caolina 28212 MMORNDUM AND DECISION OF TE IMMIGRTION JGE Respondent, through counsel, fled a motion ft a bond redeterination hearing. At te time of his request, Respondent wa in detention at the York County Detention Center l: York, Sout Carolina. The geographical aea over which the Chalotte Immigration Court has administrative controlincludes York, Sout Caolina. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.1 J. Responde1t's case was scheduled fr a bond hearing on March 13, 2014 . befre the Charlotte Immigration Cou. On March 13, 2014, the paies appeared fr Respondent's bond hearing. The Departent of Homeland Security (DHS) informed the Cour that Respondent had been transfered to the Stewar Deention Facility in nort Georga. Te Stewa Iigtation Cour has adinistative control (and therefre jurisdiction) over the Stewa Detention Facility. Acco1di1gly, the Court declined to hear Respondent's bond request fr lack of jurisdiction. Respondent reserve(! appeal. The sole issue presented is whether the Chalot Immigration Cour has jurisdiction to rle on Respondent's bond request where he is physicaly detained in Georgia. A I igation Judge's .urisdiction over bond proceedings is reglated by 8 C.F.R. 1003.19 ad 1236.l(d). Section 1003.19 of te regulations provides that an Immigraton Judge has jurisdiction to review custody and bond determinations made by the DHS pursuant t 8 C.F.R. 1236. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 1003.19(c) provides: Applications fr the exercise of authority t review bond detrminations shal be made to one of the fllowing ofces, in the designated order: 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 (1) If the respondent is detained, to te lmmigra1fon Cour having jursdiction over the place of detention; (2) To the Immigration Cour having administrative control over the case; or (3) To the Ofice of the Chief Immigration Judge fr designation of an appropriat Immigration Court. Respondent argues that because he was in a location over which this Court h administative control at the time that he fled his request fr a bond heai.ng, the Court retins juisdiction over his bond redeterination. Specifcally, Respondet argues that te Court's jurisdiction to redeterine an alien's bond is not limited in ay way by the DHS's tansfr of the alien to a diferent detention fcility. Accordin to Respondent, the regulations at 8 C.F .R. 1003.l9(c) provide procedural guidance as to where an application or request fr a bnd redeterination should be filed, but do not detemine or limit the Immigration Cour's jurisdiction to review a bondcustody determination once such an application has been made. Respondent also argues the Cour mus consider traditional venue considerations, including location of Respondent's family, counsel, and the location of rlevant events and records. The Court, however, fnds that te reglations in 8 C.F.R. 1003.l 9(c) gover the immigration court's jurjsdiction over bond proceedings. 1be regulations specifcally stte that application fr the exercise of authorlty t review bond d1terrninatlons must b made to the appropriate court as designated by the order of the list in 8 C.F.R l003. l9(c)(1)(3). Here, Respondent falls directly within the frst category in 8 C.F.R. 1003.19(c)(l) because Respondent is detained. The Court fnds that Respondent had been ttansfned from te York Colllty Detntion Facilit to the Stewar Detention Facilit at the time of bis bond hearing. Thus, the pl a in lagage of the regulation requires that any application for a bond redetrmination must be made to the immigration cour having jursdiction over the place of detention. Because the Stewa Immigration Court had jurisdiction over Respondent's place of deention at the time of his bond redetermintion heaing, this Court was wtout judsdiction to hear his request. Contrary t Respondent asse,tion, the Cour is not permited t analyze ttaditional venue considerations when determining venue for a bond redetermination hearing. Accordingly, te Court enters the fllowing: ORR The request fr bond redeterination is DEN1ED fr lack of jurisdiction. Date ' A 029-923675 2 /[. Therisa Holmes-Simmons United States Immigration Jude Charlote, Norh Carolina April 22, 20 l 4 I m m i g r a n t
United States of America and Gene E. Turley, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service v. Stephen Jones, G. Maurene Townsend, Intervenor-Appellant, 581 F.2d 816, 10th Cir. (1978)