U.S.

Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board ofImmigration Appeals Office ofthe Clerk

5107 leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Fals l Church, Virginia 22041

Echols, Eli A. Socheat Chea, P.C. 3500 Duluth Park Lane, Bldg 300 Duluth, GA 30096

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel 180 Spring Street, Suite 332 Atlanta, GA 30303

ATL

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: PATEL, HEMANTKUMAR

A047-463053

Date of this notice: 9/27/2011

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

Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members: Miller, Neil P.

Cite as: Hemantkumar Patel, A047 463 053 (BIA Sep. 27, 2011)

. U.S. Department of Justice

xecutive Office for Immigration Review Falls CJ.lt-i.clr. Virginia 22041

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

File:

A047 463 053 - Atlanta, GA

Date:

SEP 2 7 2011

In re: HEMANTKUMAR PATEL IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

MOTION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: APPLICATION: Reopening Eli A. Echols, Esquire

ORDER: The Board entered the final administrative order of removal in this case on January 28, 2011, when it summarily dismissed the respondent's appeal from the Immigration Judge's March 3, 2010, written decision. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(2)(i)(A), (E). On April 28, 2011, the respondent filed the instant untimely motion to reopen. See section 240(c)(7)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(2). The respondent raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel against his former attorney in full compliance with the procedures set froth in Matter ofLozada, 19 I&N Dec. 63 7, 639 (BIA 1988), and his former attorney admits error in her handling of the respondent's case. The respondent also stresses his business and family ties in the United States, and he contests the fairness of the proceedings before the Immigration Judge. The Department of Homeland Security has not opposed the motion. Given the particular circumstances of this case, the Board will exercise its sua sponte authority and reopen the removal proceedings. See Matter ofJ-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 976, 984 (BIA 1997) (discussing the Board's authority to reopen or reconsider cases sua sponte in exceptional situations); 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(a). Accordingly the motion to reopen is granted. FURTHER ORDER: The Immigration Judge's March 3, 2010, decision is vacated and the record is remanded for a new hearing before a different Immigration Judge.

FOR THE BOARD

\? e-----

Cite as: Hemantkumar Patel, A047 463 053 (BIA Sep. 27, 2011)