U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals
Office of the Clerk
5/07 leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 22041

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - CHI

525 West Van Buren Street
Chicago, IL 60607

Name: MARHOLT, ANTONIN

A 208-506-084
Date of this notice: 8/29/2016

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

DorutL c

l1/v\)

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Mann. Ana

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
Cite as: Antonin Marholt, A208 506 084 (BIA Aug. 29, 2016)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Siddique, Hashim, Esq.

Siddique Law Group LLC
30 West Monroe
Suite 1075
Chicago, IL 60603

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A208 506 084 - Chicago, Illinois

Date:

AUG 2 9 2016

In re: ANTONIN MARHOLT

APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:

Hashim Siddique, Esquire

CHARGE:
Notice:

Sec. 237(a)(l)(B), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(l)(B)] In the United States in violation of law

APPLICATION:

Voluntary departure

The respondent, a native and citizen of the Czech Republic, has filed a timely appeal from an
Immigration Judge's April 25, 2016, decision, ordering his removal from the United States. The
record will be remanded.
The Board reviews an Immigration Judge's findings of fact, including findings as to the
credibility of testimony and the likelihood of future events, under the "clearly erroneous"
standard. See 8 C.F.R. I003.l{d)(3)(i); Matter of Z-Z-0-, 26 l&N Dec. 586 (BIA 2015);
Matter of R-S-H-, 23 l&N Dec. 629 (BIA 2003); Matter of S-H-, 23 l&N Dec. 462 (BIA 2002).
The Board reviews questions of law, discretion, and judgment and all other issues in an appeal of
an Immigration Judge's decision de novo. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(ii).
The respondent, who is now represented by counsel, argues on appeal that he appeared pro se
before the Immigration Judge and did not understand the significance of an order of removal as
opposed to a grant of voluntary departure. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1240.ll(a)(2), Immigration
Judges have an affirmative duty to inform an alien in removal proceedings of his "apparent
eligibility" to apply for any form of relief under the Act, and to afford the alien an opportunity to
submit applications for relief during the removal hearing. See also Matter of Cordova, 22 l&N
Dec. 966, 970-71 (BIA 1999).
We acknowledge that the Immigration Judge complied with her duty under the regulations to
inform the respondent that he only appeared eligible for voluntary departure (Tr. at 15).
However, as the respondent did not have a meaningful understanding to make an informed
choice as to whether he wanted voluntary departure, and as the Immigration Judge did not
qualify the respondent for a grant of voluntary departure, we will remand the record to the
Immigration Judge to afford the respondent an opportunity to establish his eligibility for voluntary
departure, and any other form of relief from removal to which he may be entitled, and to enter a
new decision.

Cite as: Antonin Marholt, A208 506 084 (BIA Aug. 29, 2016)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

. .
-

,.

A208 506 084

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

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

2
Cite as: Antonin Marholt, A208 506 084 (BIA Aug. 29, 2016)

April 25, 2016

File: A208-506-084
In the Matter of

ANTONIN MARHOLT
RESPONDENT

)
)
)
)

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

CHARGES:

Section 237(a)(1)(B) of the INA - remained in the United States for

a time longer than permitted.

APPLICATIONS:

None.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: PRO SE

ON BEHALF OF OHS: SARAH E. ZELD

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

The respondent is a native of Czechoslovakia and a citizen of Czech
Republic. He was admitted to the United States at Chicago, Illinois, on or about May
28, 1996, as a non-immigrant B-2 with authorization to remain in the United States for a
temporary period not to exceed June 10, 1996. He remained in the United States
beyond June 10, 1996, without authorization from the Immigration and Naturalization
Service or its successor, the Department of Homeland Security. See Exhibit 1. The
Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings by issuing a Notice to

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

Appear and served on respondent in person on March 4, 2016. The Notice to Appear
charges that the respondent is removable from the United States pursuant to Section

States for a time longer than permitted.

At a hearing held on April 25, 2016, the respondent admitted to the factual
allegations contained in the Notice to Appear and conceded removability under the
above-referenced section. See Exhibit 1. On the basis of the pleadings and
examination of the charges, the Court finds that the respondent is removable as
charged. The Court designated the Czech Republic, the country of citizenship of the
respondent, as the country of removal. Therefore, by clear and convincing evidence,
the Court finds that Re-has established alienage and removability-:- has been established.
At his hearing, the respondent testified that he is 53 years old. He is
single. He does not have any children. His parents are not United States citizens or
lawful permanent residents. He has not had anyone apply for him or petition for him on
his behalf so that he can stabilize his Immigration status in the United States. His last
entry was in 1996. The Department of Homeland Security stated that the respondent
had been convicted in 2010 for driving under the influence for three times or more. He
was sentenced to four years. Respondent testified that this was correct, and that he
served a term of 20 months' incarceration. Respondent also testified that he did not
fear returning to the Czech Republic, as he has not returned to the Czech Republic in
the last 20 years. The respondent does not wish to seek any other relief before this
Court. Therefore, the Court.will order the respondent removed from the United States.
The Court will enter the following order.
ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

A208-506-084

April 25, 2016

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

237(a)(1 }(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act in that he remained in the United

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent be removed to the Czech

Republic on the charges in the Notice to Appear.

signature

A208-506-084

VIRGINIA PEREZ-GUZMAN
Immigration Judge

April 25, 2016

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Please see the next page for electronic

' . ...

/Isl/
Immigration Judge VIRGINIA PEREZ-GUZMAN

A208-506-084

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

perezv on June 20, 2016 af 10:58 PM GMT

April 25, 2016