Arzani, Nassim 11801 Pierce Street, Suite 200 Riverside, CA 92505-0000

Name: MAYA LOPEZ, VICTOR

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk

5 I 07 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 20530

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel· LOS 606 S. Olive Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014

A 201-177-467

Date of this notice: 3/26/2014

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

Enclosure

Panel Members: Guendelsberger, John

Sincerely,

DOYutL C! t1AA)

Donna Carr Chief Clerk

williame Usertea m: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Imm

igrant & Refugee A

ppellate Center | w

ww

.irac.net

Cite as: Victor Maya Lopez, A201 177 467 (BIA Mar. 26, 2014)

' . ·U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Falls Church, Virginia 20530

File: A201 177 467 - Los Angeles, CA Date:

In re: VICTOR MAY A LOPEZ a.k.a. Victor Leobardo Maya

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

APPEAL

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Nassim Arzani, Esquire

CHARGE:

MAR 2 8 2014

Notice: Sec. 212(a)(6)(A)(i), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)] -Present without being admitted or paroled

APPLICATION: Termination

The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, has appealed from the Immigration Judge's decision dated September 19, 2012. The record will be remanded.

The Board reviews an Immigration Judge's findings of fact, including findings as to the credibility of testimony, under a clearly erroneous standard. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003. l(d)(3)(i). The Board reviews questions of law, discretion, and judgment, and all other issues raised in an Immigration Judge's decision de novo. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.l(d)(3)(ii).

The transcript of proceedings and the respondent's Notice of Appeal (Form EOIR-26) reflect that the respondent conceded alienage but denied the factual allegations that he entered the United States at an unknown place and time and without being inspected and admitted or paroled, and that he contested the charge that he is subject to removal on that basis. The respondent claims that he entered the country and is lawfully present pursuant to a parole document issued to him by an officer of the Department of Homeland Security to allow him to participate in criminal proceedings as a material witness. The Immigration Judge sustained all factual allegations and the removal charge.

An Immigration Judge's decision must accurately summarize the relevant facts, reflect the Immigration Judge's analysis of the applicable statutes, regulations, and legal precedents, and clearly set forth the Immigration Judge's legal conclusions. See Matter of A-P-, 22 I&N Dec. 468 (BIA 1999); see also Matter of S-H-, 23 I&N Dec. 462, 463-65 (BIA 2002) (stating that Immigration Judges should include in their decisions clear and complete findings of fact that are

. supported by the record and are in compliance with controlling law). Inasmuch as the Immigration Judge's decision includes no reasoned analysis explaining how she resolved the contested issues of fact, including how she determined that the parole document is invalid or otherwise insufficient to authorize the respondent's lawful presence in the United States, we do not find that the decision provides us with a meaningful basis for review. Accordingly, the record will be returned to the Immigration Judge for preparation of a more complete decision that clearly articulates her rationale for sustaining the removal charge in this case. Upon

Imm

igrant & Refugee A

ppellate Center | w

ww

.irac.net

Cite as: Victor Maya Lopez, A201 177 467 (BIA Mar. 26, 2014)

'A201 177 467

preparation of the decision, the Im.migration Judge shall issue an order administratively returning the record to the Board. The Immigration Judge shall serve the administrative return order on the respondent and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Board will thereafter give the parties an opportunity to submit briefs in accordance with the regulations.

Accordingly, the following orders will be entered.

ORDER: The Immigration Judge's September 19, 2012, decision is vacated.

FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Im.migration Court for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion.

2

Imm

igrant & Refugee A

ppellate Center | w

ww

.irac.net

Cite as: Victor Maya Lopez, A201 177 467 (BIA Mar. 26, 2014)

.r- .. , �.-,,.':'t : .· J �. �

l�IgAATION CQVRT 606 SOUT:lf-oLIVE ST., 15m FLOOR

LOS ANGELES, CA 90014

In tll'e Matter of: MA YA LOPEZ , .VIC'JOR �� ·.. . :

Case No.: A201-177-467 Respondent IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

Imm

igrant & Refugee A

ppellate Center | w

ww

.irac.net