U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals

Office ofthe Clerk

5107 leesburg Pike, Suite 2000

Falls Church, Virgmia 22041

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

Westerhold, Ernest B. OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - MIA
AbogadosW 333 South Miami Ave., Suite 200
2100 Ponce de Leon Blvd Miami, FL 33130
Suite 1210
Coral Gables, FL 33134

Name: VAZIRI, AMROLLAH A 099-237-670

Date of this notice: 10/27/2017

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.
Greer, Anne J.
Wendtland, Linda S.

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index

Cite as: Amrollah Vaziri, A099 237 670 (BIA Oct. 27, 2017)
 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

VAZIRI, AMROLLAH OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - MIA
A099-237-670 333 South Miami Ave., Suite 200
c/o BROWARD TRANSITIONAL CENTER Miami, FL 33130
3900 N POWERLINE ROAD
POMPANO BEACH, FL 33073

Name: VAZIRI, AMROLLAH A 099-237-670

Date of this notice: 10/27/2017

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision in the above-referenced case. This copy is being
provided to you as a courtesy. Your attorney or representative has been served with this
decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1292.S(a). If the attached decision orders that you be
removed from the United States or affirms an Immigration Judge's decision ordering that you
be removed, any petition for review of the attached decision must be filed with and received
by the appropriate court of appeals within 30 days of the date of the decision.

Sincerely,

DonttL ctVVtJ
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members:
Adkins-Blanch, Charles K.
Greer, Anne J.
Wendtland, Linda S.

8;.1-:..ho :A
Userteam: -Qk"''

Cite as: Amrollah Vaziri, A099 237 670 (BIA Oct. 27, 2017)
 . ,

:.,,.

p.s. Department of Justice Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A099 237 670 - Miami, FL Date:

OCT 2 7 2017
In re: Arnrollah VAZIRI a.k.a. Arnrollah Varmazyar

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

APPEAL

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Ernest B. Westerhold, Esquire

ON BEHALF OF OHS: Gizelle Rodriguez

Assistant Chief Counsel

APPLICATION: Waiver under section 21 l(b) of the Act

The Department of Homeland Security (OHS) appeals from the Immigration Judge,s
May 17, 2017, decision granting the respondenfs application for a waiver under section 21 l(b) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1181(b), for readmission without proper entry
,
documents. The respondent has submitted an opposing brief in response to the OHS s appeal. The
appeal will be dismissed and the proceedings will be terminated.

On appeal, the OHS contends that the respondent is inadmissible and removable, as charged.
The OHS argues that although the respondent has been a lawful permanent resident since August
8, 2006, he is an arriving alien without proper documents. Further, OHS asserts that the
Immigration Judge erred in determining that the respondent had not abandoned his lawful
permanent resident status and then granting the respondenf s application for a waiver under section
,
21 l(b) of the Act (DHS s Br. at 5-10).

At the hearing below, the respondent testified that since becoming a lawful permanent resident
in August 2006, he made several trips back to Iran, but he never remained outside of the United
States for over 6 months (IJ at 2-3; Tr. at 30, 50-52). Specifically, the respondent testified that in
June 2010, he married an Iranian women, with whom he has two children (IJ at 2; Tr. at 27, 52).
The respondent stated that he returned to Iran to visit his wife and children and although, he tried
to convince his wife to come to the United States, she wanted to stay in Iran (IJ at 2; Tr. at 30).
The respondent also stated that he returned to Iran following his father,s death to address issues
concerning his family inheritance, which required his signature and that he be fingerprinted
(IJ at 3; Tr. at 32-34). Furthermore, the respondent testified that in 2013, he was restricted from
travelling outside of Iran during divorce proceedings with his second wife (IJ at 2-3; Tr. at 30-32;
Exh. 2 at 6). The respondent stated that he was involved in a skiing accident in 2016, which
resulted in his having to remain in Iran for medical treatment and physical therapy (IJ at 4; Tr. at
34-35, 59-61). Notably, the respondent testified that he owns a vehicle in the United States, he
maintained an apartment in Florida and he made a lump sum rental payment towards the apartment
,
prior to his departure from the United States (IJ at 4; Tr. at 35-36, 47-49).

Cite as: Amrollah Vaziri, A099 237 670 (BIA Oct. 27, 2017)
A099 237 670

As the respondent is a returning lawful permanent residence, he is not presumed to be seeking

admission under lOl (a) (13)(A) of the Act unless he falls within an exception under section
101(a)(13)(C). See Matter of Pena, 26 I&N Dec. 613, 616-18 (BIA 2015). Although the DHS
argues on appeal that the respondent has had significant absences outside of the United States in a
4-year period, it concedes that none of those absences were in excess of 180 days as required under
section l 0 l (a)(13)(C)(ii) of the Act (DHS's Br. at 7; Tr. at 50-51). Moreover, as noted by the

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

Immigration Judge and based on the evidence, while the respondent made several trips to Iran,
certain incidents beyond his control delayed his return to the United States (U at 4; Tr. at 30-35,
59-61). The Immigration Judge evaluated the factors relevant to abandonment of lawful
permanent resident status and concluded that, on balance, the respondent had not abandoned his
status (U at 3-5). See Matter ofHuang, 19 I&N Dec. 749 (BIA 1988). We find no clear error in
the Immigration Judge's findings of fact or legal error in this determination.
See, e.g., Ward
v. Holder,733 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2013) (concluding that the DHS has the burden of proof where
alien with expired "green card" had been charged with inadmissibility under section 212(a)(7) of
the Act). Because the respondent did not abandon his lawful permanent resident status, he does
not fall within the exception at 101(a)(13)(C)(i) of the Act.

As the respondent is a returning lawful permanent resident who is not seeking admission, he
is not inadmissible under section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Act and need not apply for a waiver
under section 21 l (b) of the Act. See 8 C.F.R. 21 l . l (b)(3), 211.4, 1211.4. In light of our
conclusion, we need not reach additional arguments on appeal. See Matter of J-G-,
26 I&N Dec. 161, 170 (BIA 2013) (stating that, as a general rule, courts and agencies are not
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach)
(citing INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976)).

Accordingly, the following order will be entered.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed and the removal proceedings are terminated.

Cite as: Amrollah Vaziri, A099 237 670 (BIA Oct. 27, 2017)
,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
MIAMI, FLORIDA

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

File: A099-237-670 May 17, 2017

In the Matter of

AMROLLAH VAZIRI IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

RESPONDENT

CHARGES: 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Act - no valid entry document.

APPLICATIONS: Section 211(b) waiver of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act).

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ERNEST WESTERHOLD, Esquire

ON BEHALF OF OHS: MS. RODRIGUEZ, Esquire

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

The Department of Homeland Security (Department) issued a Notice to

Appear dated March 5, 2017 which was personally served on the respondent that day,

and on the 7th of March it was filed with the Immigration Court, thereby replacing the

respondent in removal proceedings. This document is alleging that the respondent is

not a citizen or national of the United States, and that he is a native and citizen of Iran.

It further alleges that on August 8, 2006, he was accorded the status of lawful

permanent resident of the United States. It also alleges that in his sworn statement he

made to an Immigration Officer, he admitted to not having paid taxes since the year
2012. This document also alleges that in the sworn statement he admitted to never

owning any property, including a vehicle, and that he has property in Iran, and to not

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

having any steady employment in the United States since 2012. And lastly, it alleges

that on or about September 16, 2012 he departed the United States, and that on March

5, 2017, he arrived at the Miami International Airport and applied for admission as a

lawful permanent resident without the required SB-1 visa or a reentry permit. The

document charges the respondent with being removable under Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I)

of the Act for not having the proper entry document.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The respondent testified in support of his request for a 211(b) waiver,

indicating that he was born in Iran, and that he initially came to the United States as a

visitor for pleasure, and within a short period of time changed that status to a student

with an F-1 visa. And during the time that he was here as a student, he met a U.S.

citizen and they ended up getting into a relationship and then getting married, and she

petitioned for him for his legal residency which he obtained in 2006. Unfortunately, that

relationship did not last. She filed a divorce from him.

And then after the divorce, the respondent then made trips to his home

country to visit his family. While there, he met an Iranian woman and they ended up

getting married and they had two children together. It was the respondent's intention to

bring her to the United States; however, due to cultural issues she wished to stay so

there was some conflict there, but he knew he had to return back, so he came back to

the United States. Then his last exit from the U.S., it was his desire to go back to Iran to

try to convince her maybe one last time to come to the U.S., and he had a ticket to

return back to the U.S. in March of 2013. When he went to his country he could not

convince his wife to come back to the U.S. There were some marital problems, and so

A099-237-670 2 May 17, 2017

when he attempted to leave Iran for the U.S. he discovered that they would not let him

leave. There was a ban. He had to comply with certain cultural marital obligations, like

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

paying money to his wife, which was a fairly large sum which he could not do. So he

could not return back because they took his passport and he could not travel. He

indicated he made arrangements with the government to pay her back in installment

payments, and apparently that ban was lifted in 2015.

But just prior to that he had a significant, very serious skiing accident

where he fractured his leg which required three operations, and thereafter, extensive

therapy where he was in a wheelchair for many months, and he could not leave

because of that. And then there was another unexpected circumstance regarding a

family inheritance which required him to undergo periodic fingerprinting where his

signature was needed. He could not leave for that. But eventually he was able to leave

and come back to the United States. And of course, he was out for so long that when

he got to the airport the inspector said, well, you have been out for quite some time and

at this point you do not have a reentry permit, nor do you have the SB-1 visa, and so

your green card is not good enough. And you are now removable because you do not

have the proper documents to enter, so they placed him in proceedings.

STATEMENT OF THE LAW

The respondent admits to having left the United States and having been

out for more than a year, so obviously he does not have the required reentry permit to

come back to the United States, and so that is why he is seeking this 211 (b) waiver. It

is the Government's position that he may have abandoned his residence so he is no

longer a permanent resident, and so there are a number of factors the Court has to look

into, such as what was his intention when he left the United States. Was it his intention

not to come back? What was the purpose of the trip? It appears from his testimony,

A099-237-670 3 May 17, 2017

which the Court has found to be credible, that when he left the last time he wanted to try

and convince his wife to come to the United States. It appears from the documentation

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

he presented that he did attempt to leave Iran in March of 2013, but there was this ban

and he could not leave, so this was something out of his control as he could not leave.

And due to other unforeseen events out of his control, like a significant medical accident

and injury which required surgery and therapy, and another legal action regarding a

family inheritance, this prevented him from coming back to the United States.

During this whole time it does not appear that he started some type of

business there, although he does have significant assets there. He has two children

who are in Iran. He has a family home. He has two apartments that he is renting out,

but it does appear that his intention was to come back. It does appear that he did

maintain some ties here. He had his room here that he rented, which he kept open. He

had a car for a long period of time until he realized that he was paying a lot of insurance

on a car that he was not driving and could not use. So again, there are some factors

that tend to indicate that he may have abandoned his residence and a number of facts

that tend to indicate that he did attempt to come back and has not abandoned his

residence. It is important to note that he did attempt to return back to the United States,

but he was banned from returning back, so he had this baggage ticket showing that he

was at the airport showing that he was at the airport trying to come back. Again, there

are a lot of events that prevented him from coming back. Even though there are more

assets in Iran than there are here, it does appear to the Court that it was his intention to

return.

It is true he made a lot of trips to Iran as a resident, but this was because

he was obviously married. He had a wife there and wanted to visit his family, but he

always returned back within the six-month period. So I think that there are more factors

A099-237-670 4 May 17, 2017

to indicate that he did not abandon his residence than there are factors to indicate that

he did abandon his residence. And as a result, the Court will be granting his waiver to

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

come back in without the proper entry documents, pursuant to Section 211(b) of the Act.

So the waiver will be granted and the proceedings will now be over.

Please see the next page for electronic

signature
ADAM OPACIUCH
Immigration Judge

A099-237-670 5 May 17, 2017

. .

/Isl/

Immigration Judge ADAM OPACIUCH

opaciuca on July 10, 2017 at 11:43 AM GMT

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

A099-237-670 6 May 17, 2017