U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals

Office ofthe Clerk

5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

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

Gardner, Georgeanna M., Esq. OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - CHL
Gardner Law, PLLC 5701 Executive Ctr Dr., Ste 300
421 Fayetteville St. Charlotte, NC 28212
Suite 1100
Raleigh, NC 27601

Name: ZUNIGA ROMERO, JESUS HUM ..• A 205-215-795

Date of this notice: 12/1/2017

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

Sincerely,

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members:
Adkins-Blanch, Charles K.
Grant, Edward R.
Mann, Ana

LulsegeS
Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index

Cite as: Jesus Humberto Zuniga Romero, A205 215 795 (BIA Dec. 1, 2017)
·U.S. DepArtmeot of Justice Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 2204 l

File: A205 215 795 - Charlotte, NC Date:

DEC - 1 2017
In re: Jesus Humberto ZUNIGA ROMERO

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

APPEAL

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Georgeanna M. Gardner, Esquire

ON BEHALF OF OHS: Hilary Rainone

Assistant Chief Counsel

The respondent has filed an appeal of the Immigration Judge's decision dated March 8, 2017,
which denied his motion for administrative closure. The Department of Homeland Security (OHS)
has filed an opposition to the appeal. The appeal will be sustained and the proceedings will be
administratively closed.

We review findings of fact made by the Immigration Judge, including the determination of
credibility, under the "clearly erroneous" standard. 8 C.F.R. § 1003. l(d)(3)(i). We review all
other issues, including issues of law, discretion, or judgment, under a de novo standard. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.l(d)(3)(ii).

On appeal, the respondent argues that the Immigration Judge improperly denied his request for
administrative closure (Respondent's Br. at 4-8). In the alternative, he requests that the Board
grant administrative closure sua sponte (Respondent's Br. at 8-9). See Matter ofAvetisyan,
25 l&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012) (holding that the Immigration Judges and the Board may
administratively close removal proceedings, even if a party opposes, if it is otherwise appropriate
under the circumstances).

The Immigration Judge stated that "none of the factors outlined in Matter ofAvetisyan are
present in this case" (U at 2). However, Matter ofAvetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. at 696, lists six factors
to consider in evaluating a request for administrative closure, several if not all of which are
applicable in this case. Therefore, the appeal will be sustained.

The respondent is seeking administrative closure because he has an approved spousal visa
petition but needs to file a request for provisional waiver of unlawful presence (Form I-601A). He
asserts that his spouse would suffer extreme hardship if he is required to depart the United States
during the processing of a provisional waiver. OHS has opposed administrative closure, asserting
that the respondent is an enforcement priority, although they do not specify why he is considered
a priority (DHS Br. at 3-4). DHS also argues in part that the closure would be for an indefinite
period of time (OHS Br. at 7). There do not appear to be any negative factors which would
preclude the grant of an I-601A waiver or the grant of adjustment of status to the respondent.

In light of our decision in Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), we will
administratively close the proceedings.
Cite as: Jesus Humberto Zuniga Romero, A205 215 795 (BIA Dec. 1, 2017)
I A205 215 795

If either party to this case wishes to reinstate the proceedings, a written request to reinstate the
proceedings may be made to the Board. The Board will take no further action in the case unless a
request is received from one of the parties. The request must be submitted directly to the Clerk's
Office, without fee, but with certification of service on the opposing party.

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

Accordingly, the following order will be entered.

ORDER: The appeal is sustained.

FURTHER ORDER: Proceedings before the Board of Immigration Appeals are

'·
administratively closed.

Cite as: Jesus Humberto Zuniga Romero, A205 215 795 (BIA Dec. 1, 2017)
 f
'

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
CHARLOTIE, NORTH CAROLINA

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

File: A205-215-795 March 8, 2017

In the Matter of

)
JESUS HUMBERTO ZUNIGA ROMERO ) IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
)
RESPONDENT )

CHARGES:

APPLICATIONS:

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: GEORGIANA GARDNER

ON BEHALF OF OHS: scon CRISS

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

Now It-comes no•.-: to the Court upon the respondent's motion for administrative

closure under Matter of Avetisyan, which is opposed by the Department of Homeland

Security and finds the following:

1. That the respondent is the beneficiary of an approved Form 1-130 filed by his

United States citizen wife on May 21, 2014. The respondent received notice that the

Form 1-130 was approved on November 3, 2015.

2. That on December 19, 2016, respondent, through counsel, filed a motion for

administrative closure in an effort to seek adjudication of a Form l-601A with the United

Cite as: Jesus Humberto Zuniga Romero, A205 215 795 (BIA Dec. 1, 2017)
States Citizenship and Immigration Service.

3. That at a Master Calendar hearing on March 8, 2017, the OHS advised it was

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

opposing the respondent's motion ta-for administrative closure on the basis that the

respondent is an enforcement priority, and that the OHS is unwilling to exercise

discretion in administrative closure of this case.

The Court finds that none of the factors outlined in Matter of Avetisyan, are

present in this case. Accordingly, the Court finds the respondent has not met his

burden to show that in the absence of these factors this case would warrant

administrative cl.osure over the opposition of the OHS.

The respondent's motion for administrative closure is hereby denied.

Please see the next page for electronic

signature
V. STUART COUCH
Immigration Judge

A205-215-795 2 March 8, 2017

//s//

Irrunigration Judge V. STUART COUCH

CouchVS on June 14, 2017 at 12:38 PM GMT

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

A205-215-795 3 March 8, 2017