U.S.

Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office of the Clerk

5107 J.eesb11rg l'ike, S11ite 2000 Falls C/i11rc/i, Virginia 12041

Yee, Tsui H. 233 Broadway, Suite 2040 New York, NY 10279-0000

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel 333 Mt. Elliott St., Rm. 204 Detroit, Ml 48207

DET

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: LALL, DAVE

A 095-571-038

Date of this notice: 8/27/2013

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

Don.JtL cf1/VU
Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure Panel Members: Miller, Neil P.

williame Userteam: Docket

Cite as: Dave Lall, A095 571 038 (BIA Aug. 27, 2013)

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review Falls Church, Virginia 2204 l

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

File:

A095 571 038 -Detroit, MI

Date:

AUG 2 7 2013

In re: DAVE LALL

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

MOTION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF DHS: Tsui H. Yee, Esquire

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Brian C. Burgtorf Assistant Chief Counsel

This case was last before us on April 7, 2011, at which time we dismissed the respondent's appeal from the Immigration Judge's November 23, 2010, decision finding him removable under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act. The respondent has now filed an untimely motion to reopen

--

proceedings on June 12, 2013. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(2). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) opposes the pending motion, which will be granted pursuant to our sua sponte 1 authority. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(a). With his motion, the respondent has submitted, inter alia, a court order from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, dated March 14, 2013, granting, in part, the respondent's writ of habeas corpus. pursuant to

Matter of Pickering,

The respondent argues that

23 l&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2003), his case should be terminated

because he is no longer removable. The DHS argues in its response brief that the respondent has not carried his burden of demonstrating that his conviction has been vacated; as such, his conviction is still valid for immigration purposes. 2007).

Chavez, 24 I&N Dec. 272 (BIA

See

section 101(a)(48) of the Act;

Matter of

Given the basis of the District Court's decision, and its possible ramifications, we find it appropriate to remand the record to the Immigration Court for further proceedings regarding the respondent's removability and the status of his conviction. As such, the following order will be entered. ORDER: The motion is granted, and the record will be remanded to the Immigration Court for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing decision.

---=--R D LFOR THE BOARD

v.

The record indicates that the respondent has been removed from the United States. Holder, 632 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2011).

See Pruidze

Cite as: Dave Lall, A095 571 038 (BIA Aug. 27, 2013)