Matter of Barocio
| Decision Date | 08 August 1985 |
| Docket Number | Interim Decision Number 2992,A-23060079,A-23060080.,A-23060078 |
| Citation | 19 I&N Dec. 255 |
| Parties | MATTER OF BAROCIO. In Deportation Proceedings. |
| Court | U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals |
In a decision dated June 28, 1983, the immigration judge found the respondents deportable, denied their applications for suspension of deportation, and granted them the privilege of voluntary departure in lieu of deportation. On August 28, 1984, the respondents' appeal from that decision was dismissed by the Board which granted them a 30-day extension of their voluntary departure period. The respondents failed to depart voluntarily within that time. No petition for review of the Board's order was filed. Notice to report for deportation was sent to the respondents on March 1, 1985, but they failed to appear on April 1, 1985, as required. Their requests for a stay of deportation were denied by the district director on March 27, 1985, and by the Board on April 1, 1985. On March 29, 1985, the respondents filed a motion to reopen their deportation proceedings in order to request reinstatement of voluntary departure. The Immigration and Naturalization Service opposes the motion. The motion to reopen will be denied.
The respondents, husband and wife, are natives and citizens of Mexico. The record reflects that they last entered the United States without inspection, the female respondent on January 15, 1976, and the male respondent on May 9, 1981. The respondents have three United States citizen children.
In requesting reinstatement of voluntary departure, the respondents note that the male respondent has a nonpreference priority date of December 8, 1976, and that his brother has applied for naturalization. They claim that they are now willing to return to Mexico to wait for a visa based on their anticipated fifth-preference classification. The respondents therefore contend that voluntary departure should be reinstated for humanitarian reasons. They further allege that they were unaware of the 30-day voluntary departure period granted to them by the Board and that they believed a petition for review would be filed by their attorney.
The Service bases its opposition to the motion on the fact that the respondents are presently in abscondee status, having failed to report for deportation on April 1, 1985. In support of its position, the Service has submitted return receipts signed by both the male respondent and the office of his prior attorney which verify that they received the notice to report. In addition, evidence has been presented establishing the Service's unsuccessful efforts to locate the respondents for deportation through investigations at their last known address, the male respondent's last known place of employment, the postal service, the California Department of Motor Vehicles, and the local gas and telephone companies. The Service contends that the respondents do not merit discretionary relief because they are fugitives who have unlawfully evaded deportation. It is further argued that the respondents have not shown any compelling reasons for their failure to depart within the time originally granted for voluntary departure as required for reinstatement of that privilege.
The decision whether to grant a motion to reopen deportation proceedings is a matter within the discretion of this Board. See INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985); INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183 (1984); INS v. Wang, 450 U.S. 139 (1981). When the Board determines that reopening is not warranted in the exercise of discretion, the question of statutory eligibility for the requested relief need not be considered. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976); LeBlanc v. INS, 715 F.2d 685 (1st Cir. 1983); Agustin v. INS, 700 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1983); Hibbert v. INS, 554 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1977). Furthermore, even if prima facie eligibility has been established, the Board may deny a motion to reopen for purely discretionary reasons where the record reflects that significant grounds exist for denying reopening based on the respondent's actions. See INS v. Rios-Pineda, supra; Ahwazi v. INS, 751 F.2d 1120 (9th Cir. 1985); Balani v. INS, 669 F.2d 1157 (6th Cir. 1982); Matter of Reyes, 18 I&N Dec. 249 (BIA 1982); Matter of Rodriguez-Vera, 17 I&N Dec. 105 (BIA 1979).
The respondents in this case were ordered to report for deportation, having failed to depart voluntarily pursuant to the privilege previously accorded them. Although they now seek reinstatement of that privilege, they have also refused to report for deportation pursuant to the notice which was sent to them by the Service. Such deliberate flouting of the immigration laws has been considered a very serious adverse factor which warrants the denial of a motion to reopen deportation proceedings as a matter of discretion. See Mortazavi v. INS, 719 F.2d 86 (4th Cir. 1983); Pang Kiu Fung v. INS, 663 F.2d 417 (2d Cir. 1981); see also INS v. Rios-Pineda, supra.
It has long been recognized that the incentives for an alien to voluntarily depart from the United States or to submit to a deportation order are abated by the availability of procedures which provide a seemingly endless opportunity to seek relief from deportation. See INS v. Rios-Pineda, supra; Riasati v. INS, 738 F.2d 1115 (10th Cir. 1984); Fan Wan Keung v. INS, 434 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1970); Matter of Yeung, 13 I&N Dec. 528 (BIA 1970). The prevalent misuse of the procedures for reopening by many aliens and the resultant delays in their deportation have been the subject of much comment by the courts. See Reid v. INS, 766 F.2d 113 (3d Cir. 1985); Dallo v. INS, 765 F.2d 581 (6th Cir. 1985); Bonilla v. INS, 711 F.2d 43 (5th Cir. 1983); Muigai v. INS, 682 F.2d 334 (2d Cir. 1982); Der-Rong Chour v. INS, 578 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1978); Acevedo v. INS, 538 F.2d 918 (2d Cir. 1976). This problem was recently acknowledged in INS v. Wang, supra, where the Supreme Court noted the necessity of according to the Board wide discretion to determine what circumstances warrant reopening of proceedings. Quoting from a dissent by Judge Wallace of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Court observed as follows:
If INS discretion is to mean anything, it must be that the INS has some latitude in deciding when to reopen a case. The INS should have the right to be restrictive. Granting such motions too freely will permit endless delay of deportation by aliens creative and fertile enough to continuously produce new and material facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case. It will also waste the time and efforts of immigration judges called upon to preside at hearings automatically required by the prima facie allegations.
INS v....
To continue reading
Request your trial