Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Attorney at Law
9100. Southwest Freeway, Suite 235
Houston, TX 7707 4
Name: MALIK, AHMED NADEEM
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Qffice of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike. Suite 2000
Fals C/11ml. Vrginia 20530
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel - CHI
525 West Van Buren Street
Chicago, IL 60607
A 092-006-532
Date of this notice: 12/17/2013
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Creppy, Michael J.
Liebowitz, Ellen C
Mullane, Hugh G.
Sincerely,
DO c t
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Use rte am: 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For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished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: Ahmed Nadeem Malik, A092 006 532 (BIA Dec. 17, 2013)
U.S. Deparment of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Immigation Review
Decision of the Board of Immigation Appeals
Falls Church, Virginia 20530
File: A092 006 532 -Chicago, IL
In re: AHMED NADEEM MALIK
I REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
APPEAL
Date:
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Zaheer Zaidi, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF OHS: Minnie D. Yuen
Assistant Chief Counsel
APPLICATION: Termination; reconsideration
DC 17 2013
The respondent appeals fom the Immigration Judge's decision dated November 9, 2012,
denying his motion to reconsider the Immigration Judge's decision terminating proceedings.
The removal proceedings will be reinstated, and the record will be remanded to te Immigration
Judge fr frher proceedings. The respondent's request fr oral argument is denied. 8 C.F.R.
1003.l(e)(7).
We review fr clear error the fndings of fct made by the Immigation 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 respondent adjusted to lawfl permanent resident stats on December I, 1990. Such
status was rescinded by the goverent on February 25, 1995. The DHS fled a Notice to
Appear on June 12, 2010, and the Immigration Judge granted the DHS's motion to terminate
proceedings without prejudice on August 6, 2012. On September 4, 2012, the respondent fled a
motion to reconsider and re-asserted a challenge to the 1995 rescission of his lawl permanent
resident status. On November 9, 2012, the Immigration Judge issued the decision currently
befre us, which denied the respondent's motion to reconsider.
The Immigration Judge denied the respondent's motion to reconsider the termination of
proceedings afer concluding that "proceedings have been properly terminated, the proper venue
fr the respondent's argument [challenging the rescission of his lawl permaent resident status]
is the USCIS'- ' (l.J. at 1-2). On appeal, the respondent argues that the rescission of his lawfl
permanent resident status is reviewable in removal proceedings, and that the termination of
proceedings "efectively deprived the Respondent of a fru fr review of USC IS' illegal
rescission order."
Once jurisdiction vests with the Immigration Judge, neither pary can compel the termination
of proceedings without a proper reason fr the Immigration Judge to do so. See Mater of W-C
B-, 24 l&N Dec. 118, 122 (BIA 2007) (stating that once jurisdiction vests with an Immigration
Judge, a notice to appear cannot be cancelled by the DHS, which must instead move fr
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: Ahmed Nadeem Malik, A092 006 532 (BIA Dec. 17, 2013)
A092 006 532
dismissal of the matter on the basis of a ground set frth in the regulations); see also 8 C.F.R.
239.2 (setting frth grounds on which the DHS may cancel a notice to appear); 8 C.F.R.
1239.2(c) (setting frh grounds on which the DHS may move fr dismissal); cf Matter of
Vzcarra-Delgadillo, 13 I&N Dec. 51 (BIA 1968) (holding that the Immigration Judge had
authority to terminate proceedings as "improvidently begun" in a case where termination was
reasonable ad both parties agreed to the motion to dismiss). In this regard, an Immigration
Judge may terminate proceedings when the DHS caot sustain the charges or in other specifc
circumstances consistent with the law and applicable regulations. See Matter of W-C-B-, supra.
In this case, the Immigration Judge incorrectly stated that the respondent did not oppose
termination of proceedings (I.J. Dec dated August 6, 2012; I.J. Dec. dated November 9, 2012,
at 1-2); the respondent timely fled his opposition to the DHS's Motion to Terminate on
May 14, 2012, in which he opposed the DHS's request based on his challenges to the rescission
(Respondent's Opposition, fled May 14, 2012). On the record presently befre us, neither the
DHS's Motion to Terminate nor te Immigration Judge order dated August 6, 2012, provides a
basis fr termination within the scope of the regulations. 8 C.F.R. 239.2, 1239.2. See also
Matter of W-C-B-, supra. Tus, we fnd it appropriate to reinstate the removal proceedings and
to remand this case fr frther proceedings as the Immigration Judge deems necessary under the
circumstances, including a more complete analysis of the DHS's motion to terminate. Id, see
also Matter of A-P-, 22 I&N Dec. 468, 473 (BIA 1999); Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786
(BIA 1994).
Accordingly, the fllowing orders shall be entered.
ORDER: The Immigration Judge's orders ae vacated, and the removal proceedings are
reinstated.
FURTHER ORER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge fr frter
proceedings consistent with the fregoing decision and fr the entry of a new decision.
BOA
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: Ahmed Nadeem Malik, A092 006 532 (BIA Dec. 17, 2013)
-
.-