U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofimmigration Appeals
Office of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike. Suite 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 22041

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - HAR

P. 0. Box 230217
Hartford, CT 06123-0217

Name: TACHIE MENSAH, MICHAEL

A 205-497-725

Date of this notice: 2/18/2016

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

De CwVLJ
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Holmes, David B.

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/

Cite as: Michael Tachie Mensah, A205 497 725 (BIA Feb. 18, 2016)

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

TACHIE MENSAH, MICHAEL

A205-497-725
FRANKLIN HOUSE OF CORRECTION
160 ELM STREET
GREENFIELD, MA 01301

U.S. Department of Justice

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A205 497 725 - Hartford, CT

Date:

In re: MICHAEL TACHIE MENSAH a.k.a. Joseph Todd

FEB 1 8 2015

MOTION
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Pro se
This case was last before us on September 16, 2015, at which time we dismissed the
respondent's appeal from the Immigration Judge's June 10, 2015, decision. In his decision, the
Immigration Judge relied on the respondent's criminal conviction to deny voluntary departure in
the exercise of discretion. The respondent has filed a timely motion to reopen proceedings on
November 16, 2015. The Department of Homeland Security has not responded to the motion,
which will be granted.
A motion to reopen shall not be granted unless it appears that the evidence sought to be
offered "was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former
hearing. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(l). Further, this Board has held that a party who seeks to
reopen proceedings to pursue a discretionary grant of relief from removal bears a "heavy burden"
of demonstrating that if his motion to reopen were granted, the new evidence presented would
likely change the result in the case. Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 464 (BIA 1992). With his
motion, the respondent has submitted copies of a court docket involving his criminal conviction.
In his motion, the respondent argues that he did not receive sufficient opportunity to
obtain representation and translation assistance, but we note that the Immigration Judge and this
Board previously addressed this issue (Bd. Dec. at 1; I.J. Dec. at 2; Tr. at 1 17). However, the
respondent also argues that his criminal conviction is on direct appeal, and his evidence appears
to support his claim. While some of the criminal court docket entries pre..date the respondent's
hearing, others post..date it. Given the lack of DHS response to the motion, the claims made in
the respondent's pro se motion, and the basis of the Immigration Judge's decision to deny
voluntary departure, we will grant the respondent's motion and remand the record for further
consideration. 1 Accordingly, the following order will be entered.
00

ORDER: The motion to reopen is granted, and the record is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with the foregoineision.
FOR THE BOARD
1

In his motion, the respondent refers to "the state of his mental health." However, he has not
specified any mental health issues and the record does not suggest any competency concerns.
See generally Matter ofM..A ..M.., 25 I&N De. 474 (BIA 2011).

Cite as: Michael Tachie Mensah, A205 497 725 (BIA Feb. 18, 2016)

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS