U.S.

Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigrarion Appeals

Q[fice ofthe Clerk
5107 l.eesb11rg Pike. S11ite JOOO

Falls Church. Virginia 20530

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - CHI

525 West Van Buren Street
Chicago, IL 60607

Name: SANCHEZ-VIRGIL, PEDRO

A 200-836-945

Date of this notice: 6/12/2015

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

Don.rtL c
Sincerely,

t1.AA)

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Grant, Edward R.

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
Cite as: Pedro Sanchez-Virgil, A200 836 945 (BIA June 12, 2015)

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

Fennell, Kelli A.
Tapia-Ruano & Gunn, P.C.
53 W. Jackson Blvd.
Suite 852
Chicago, IL 60604

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review
Falls Church, Virginia 20530

Date:

File: A200 836 945 - Chicago, IL

JUN 112015

In re: PEDRO SANCHEZ-VIRGIL

APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Kelli A. Fennell, Esquire
APPLICATION: Reopening
The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals from the Immigration Judge's
decision dated July 8, 2013, denying the respondent's motion to reopen in absentia proceedings.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not filed a reply to the appeal. The record will
be remanded.
The Immigration Judge denied the respondent's motion to reopen finding that the
respondent had not established prima facie eligibility for a "U" nonimmigrant visa. See 8 C.F.R.
214.14(c)(S)(i). On appeal, the respondent maintains that after filing his motion to reopen, he
filed a supplemental filing with the Immigration Judge and he proffers evidence that he is
eligible for a "U" nonimmigrant visa 1 See 8 C.F.R. 214.14(c)(S)(i).
Under the circumstances here, we find remand warranted to allow the Immigration Judge
to reconsider the respondent's motion to reopen in light of the proffered evidence.
ORDER: The record is remanded for

er proceedings and the entry of a new decision.

FO

The proffered evidence is a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services letter dated March 26,
2014, informing the respondent that he has demonstrated the eligibility requirements for U
Nonimmigrant Status, and placing him in deferred action through December 31, 2014.
Cite as: Pedro Sanchez-Virgil, A200 836 945 (BIA June 12, 2015)

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

-
..

..

.:,;J

'

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMMIGRATION COURT
525 W. VAN BUREN, SUITE 500
CHICAGO, IL 60607

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

TAPIA-RUANO & GUNN P.C.

TAPIA-RUANO, CARLINA
53 W. JACKSON, #852
CHICAGO, IL 60604
Date: Jan 21, 2014
File A200-836-945
In the Matter of:
SANCHEZ-VIRGIL, PEDRO
Attached is a copy of the written decision of the Immigration Judge.
This decision is final unless an appeal is taken to the Board of
Immigration Appeals. The enclosed copies of FORM EOIR 26,
Notice of Appeal, and FORM EOIR 27, Notice of Entry as Attorney or
Representative, properly executed, must be filed with the Board of
Immigration Appeals on or before
The appeal must be accompanied by proof of paid fee ($110.00).
Enclosed is a copy of the oral decision.
Enclosed is a transcript of the testimony of record.
You are granted until
to submit a brief
to this office in support of your appeal.
pposing counsel is granted
brief in opposition to
Enclosed is a copy of

to submit a
he Immigration Judge.

All papers filed with

of service

cc: MICHELLE VENCI, ASST CHIEF

525 W. VAN BUREN, STE 700
CHICAGO, IL 60607

UL

.\,j,,_

... .

' -

",.

. :-

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMMIGRATION COURT
525 W. VAN BUREN, SUITE 500
CHICAGO, IL 60607

Date: Jul 8, 2013

,/

File A200-836-945
In the Matter of:
SANCHEZ-VIRGIL, PEDRO

Attached is a copy of the written decision of the Immigration Judge.

This decision is final unless an appeal is taken to the Board of
Immigration Appeals. The enclosed copies of FORM EOIR 26,
Notice of Appeal, and FORM EOIR 27, Notice of Entry as Attorney or
Representative, properly executed, must be filed with the Bdard of
Immigration Appeals on or before
The appeal must be accompanied by proof of paid fee ($110.00).
Enclosed is a copy of the oral decision.
Enclosed is a transcript of the testimony of record.
- You are granted until
to submit a brief
to this office in support of your appeal.
Opposing counsel is granted until
brief in opposition to the appeal.

.,.

to submit a

I - Enclosed is a copy of the order/ );_he Immigration Judge.

All papers filed with the Court shall be accompanied by proof
of service upon opposing

cc: MICHELLE VENCI, ASST CHIEF

525 W. VAN BUREN, STE 700
CHICAGO, IL 60607

UL

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

MEAH, JACOB
1751 S. NAPERVILLE ROAD #204
WHEATON, IL 60189

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMMIGRATION COURT
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

In the Matter of:

Pedro SANCHEZ-Virgil

CHARGE:

)
)
)
)
)

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act ("INA"), Entry without inspection

APPLICATIONS: Motion to Reopen and Stay of Removal

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

ON BEHALF OF THE DHS:

53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 852

Chicago, IL 60604

Assistant Chief Counsel

525 W. Van Buren, 7th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60607

Carlina Tapia-Ruano

Michelle Venci

DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

On April 19, 2013, the respondent filed a Motion to Reopen which included a
request for a stay of removal proceedings. There are two grounds for his
requests.
First, the respondent claims eligibility for a U Visa, which provides protection,
namely, with a non-immigrant visa authorized, for applicants who have
suffered substantial physical or mental abuse as a result of having been a
victim of "qualifying criminal activity." Additionally, the applicant must
possess credible information establishing knowledge of the criminal activity.
Finally, he must demonstrate that he is being helpful to a certifying agency
in the investigation of the qualifying criminal activity.
To qualify, an applicant must file Form I-918 which includes a certification
from an authorized official stating that the applicant has cooperated with law
enforcement in solving a crime. However, in this case, although the
-l-

--

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

Date: July 8, 2013

File No.: A200-836-945

Additionally, the respondent relies on"...the introduction of The Outline of

the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization
Act of 2013, on April 17, 2013...", as an"additional intervening
circumstances." Such a bill was introduced in the Senate, and a variation of
the initial bill was passed by that legislative branch prior to its 4th of July
recess. However, the House of Representatives has not yet acted on the
legislation and therefore, it is unclear at this time whether a final bill will be
passed by both houses of the legislature and signed by the president. Since
it is uncertain whether any legislation will be passed or what form, i.e. with
what requirements, the legislation will take, it cannot be claimed that the
respondent qualifies for any "amnesty" of his illegal residence in the United
States. It should also be noted that the respondent, who was recently
convicted of the of property valued at less than $300, does not have a
clean record.
In sum, the respondent cjoes not qualify for a U visa nor is he eligible for an
amnesty because none as approved. Therefore, there is no justification for
reopening removal proceedings or stay the order of removal. The
respondent voluntarily relinquished his right to appeal the departure order
entered by the Court on December 18, 2012, in exchange for permission to
leave voluntarily before April 17, 2013. Having agreed to those terms, he
should have complied by leaving before then. Accordingly, the following
orders will be entered:
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED THAT the Motion to reopen be (and hereby
is) DENIED.
Further, IT IS ORDERED THAT the request for a Stay of the removal
order be DENIED.

Craig

Immigration Judge
-2 -

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

respondent has applied for the certification, his request was denied by the
Joliet Police Department. The PD letter states that the department was
unwilling to issue a certification to the respondent because of " ...the fact that
no physical evidence could be found to corroborate that this incident
occurred as reported ..." on March 15, 2013. Lacking the certification from
law enforcement, the respondent fails to qualify for a U visa. In short, he is
not prima facie eligible for it. In a nutshell, if he cannot be granted a U visa
under present circumstances, there is no justification for reopening to await
the final adjudication of his U-visa application.