U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals

Office ofthe Clerk

5107 leesburg Pike, Suite 2000

Falls Church, Virgm1a 22041

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

Yi, Esq., John X. OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - ATL
Law Offices of Gutierrez Yi, LLP 180 Ted Turner Dr., SW, Ste 332
4900 Leesburg Pike Atlanta, GA 30303
Suite 210
Alexandria, VA 22302

Name: L -G , C D A -158

Date of this notice: 7/26/2017

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

Sincerely,

Cynthia L. Crosby
Deputy Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members:
Guendelsberger, John
Kendall Clark, Molly
Liebowitz, Ellen C

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/

Cite as: C-D-L-G-, AXXX XXX 158 (BIA July 26, 2017)
U.S. Department of Justice Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: 158 -Atlanta, GA Date:

JUL 2 6 2017
In re: C D L -G

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

IN ASYLUM AND/OR WITHOLDING ONLY PROCEEDINGS

APPEAL

ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: John X. Yi, Esquire

ON BEHALF OF DHS: Greg Radics

Assistant Chief Counsel

APPLICATION: Withholding of Removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture

This matter was last before the Board on August l, 2016, when we dismissed the applicant's
claim for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
8 U.S.C. 123 l(b)(3) (2006), and her request for protection under Article 3 of the Convention
Against Torture, 8 C.F.R. 1208.16 (c) (2009). On January 27, 2017, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated our August l, 2016, order and granted the government's
unopposed motion to remand. The record will be remanded for further proceedings.

We review the findings of fact, including determinations of credibility, made by the

Immigration Judge under the "clearly erroneous" standard. 8 C.F.R. 1003. l (d)(3)(i). We review
all other issues, including issues of law, judgment, and discretion, under a de novo standard.
8 C.F.R. 1003. l(d)(3)(ii). An Immigration Judge may grant a motion for change of venue for
"good cause." 8 C.F.R. 1003.20(b).

The unopposed motion to remand requested that the Board consider the Immigration Judge's
basis for implicitly denying the applicant's motion for change of venue. The remand order also
directed the Board to consider the applicant's claim that the denial of her motion for change of
venue resulted in prejudicial error in that it deprived her of her right to counsel and precluded her
from presenting a witness who would have testified, among other things, in support of her claim
for protection under the Convention Against Torture.

The applicant argues that the Immigration Judge erred in denying her motion for a change of
venue from Georgia to Virginia. The Immigration Judge did not explicitly deny the motion for
change of venue on the record; thus, we are unable to discern the exact basis for his ruling. The
record reflects, however, that the applicant, her attorney, and her witness resided in Virginia.
Given the location of the parties, the costs associated with traveling to Georgia, and the apparent
lack of prejudice to the Department of Homeland Security in granting the motion, we conclude
that good cause was established for the change in venue.

In challenging the denial of a motion to change venue, the applicant also must establish that the
denial resulted in prejudice. See Frech v. US. Atty. Gen, 491 F.3d 1277, 1282 n. 9 (1 Jlh Cir. 2007)

Cite as: C-D-L-G-, AXXX XXX 158 (BIA July 26, 2017)
 158

(a challenge to the denial of a change in venue cannot prevail without a showing of prejudice). We
conclude that the applicant met her burden of proof to establish prejudice in this case.

Although the applicant had retained counsel in Virginia, she notes in her appeal brief that she
appeared pro se at the individual hearing in September 2014 "due to financial concerns." The
applicant also was unable to present witness testimony due to the denial of the request for a change
in venue. The record reflects that the applicant's Georgia attorney withdrew from the case a few

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

months before the hearing, and the Immigration Judge did not explicitly rule on the applicant's
request for change in venue or inquire regarding the applicant's current legal representation before
proceeding with the hearing on the merits (Tr. at 24-25). Based on this record, we conclude that
the respondent was prejudiced. See sections 240(b)(4)(A), 292 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(2),
1362; 8 C.F.R. 1240.lO(a)(l); Matter ofMadrigal, 21 I&N Dec. 323 (BIA 1996).

Accordingly, the applicant's request to change venue to the Immigration Court in Arlington,
Virginia will be granted, and the record will be remanded for a new hearing on the merits.

ORDER: The appeal is sustained, and venue is hereby changed to the Arlington Immigration
Court.

FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the
foregoing decision.

Cite as: C-D-L-G-, AXXX XXX 158 (BIA July 26, 2017)