You are on page 1of 5

Parsonage, Helen

Elliot Morgan Parsonage, PLLC


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For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished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

&

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

You might also like