U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals
Office of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church. Virginia 22041

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - DAL

125 E. John Carpenter Fwy, Ste. 500
Irving, TX 75062-2324

Name: TEICHROEB-PETERS, PETE

A 093-518-654
Date of this notice: 1/13/2017

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

D0'1.ltL c

t1/lA)

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For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/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: Pete Teichroeb-Peters, A093 518 654 (BIA Jan. 13, 2017)

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

TEICHROEB-PETERS, PETE
A093-518-654
ROLLING PLAINS DETENTION CTR
118 CCU NTY RD., #206
HASKELL, TX 79521

U.S. Department of Justice

Executiye Office

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 2204 I

File: A093 518 654- Dallas, Texas

Date:

JAN 1 3 2017

In re: PETE TEICHROEB-PETERS

APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:
ON BEHALF OF DHS:

Pro se

Levi Thomas
Assistant Chief Counsel

CHARGE:
Notice: Sec.
Sec.

237(a){l)(B), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(l)(B)] In the United States in violation of law
237(a)(l)(C)(i), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(l)(C)(i)] Nonimmigrant - violated conditions of status

APPLICATION: Remand, voluntary departure

The respondent, a native of Belize and citizen of Mexico, has filed a timely appeal of an
Immigration Judge's September 1, 2016, decision, ordering his removal from the United States.
The record will be remanded to the Immigration Court for further proceedings in accordance with
this opinion and the entry of a new decision.
The Board reviews an Immigration Judge's findings of fact, including findings as to the
credibility of testimony and the likelihood of future events, under the "clearly erroneous" standard.
See 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i); Matter ofZ-Z-0-, 26 I&N Dec. 586 (BIA 2015); Matter ofR-S-H-,
23 I&N Dec. 629 (BIA 2003); Matter ofS-H-, 23 I&N Dec. 462 (BIA 2002). The Board reviews
questions of law, discretion, and judgment and all other issues in an appeal of an Immigration
Judge's decision de novo. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(ii).
On appeal, the respondent raises a due process challenge to the Immigration Judge's conduct
of the proceedings so as to have denied him a full and fair hearing. In the context of removal
proceedings before an Immigration Judge, due process requires that aliens threatened with
removal are provided the right to a full and fair hearing that allows them a reasonable opportunity
to present evidence on their behalf. "The fundamental requirement of due process is the
opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Mathews v. Eldridge,
424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)).
However, on de novo review, we are not persuaded by the respondent's appellate argument
that the Immigration Judge never took the pleadings to the allegations and charges in the Notice to
Appear (Form 1-862) ("NTA"), and failed to provide the respondent the opportunity to address
those charges, and if applicable, establish his eligibility for any relief from removal to which he
Cite as: Pete Teichroeb-Peters, A093 518 654 (BIA Jan. 13, 2017)

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

 Ao93

s1s 654

However, even though the Immigration Judge found the respondent removable, as charged,
and statutorily ineligible for any relief from removal, it does not appear the Immigration Judge
met his obligation to meaningfully explain to the respondent, who was unrepresented at the
hearing, of his apparent eligibility for either pre-hearing or post-hearing voluntary departure
under sections 240B(a) or 240B (b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229c(a) or 1229c(b). 1 See 8 C.F.R.
1240. l l(a)(2) (providing that an Immigration Judge shall inform an alien of his or her apparent
eligibility for specified forms of relief, and provide an opportunity to make such an application);
see also Matter ofCordova, 22 l&N Dec. 966, 970-71 (BIA 1999); Matter of Ulloa, 22 I&N Dec.
725, 726 (BIA 1999). On de novo review, we find the respondent was not properly informed of
the conditions under which he could apply for voluntary departure under either sections 240B(a)
or 240B(b) of the Act, and was, in fact, denied a meaningful opportunity to apply for either of
these forms of relief. See Matter of Cordova, supra, at 971-72.
Even though the respondent was apparently eligible for either of these forms of voluntary
departure, and should have been properly informed of this fact and provided with a meaningful
opportunity to apply, statutory eligibility is not enough as this is a discretionary form of relief.
Furthermore, as the Immigration Judge has the authority and discretion to impose a bond under
either sections 240B(a)(3) and 240B(b)(3) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229c(a)(3) and 1229c(b)(3), it
is appropriate to remand the record to the Immigration Judge to provide the respondent with a
meaningful opportunity to apply for either form of voluntary departure, and for consideration of
the respondent's applications, in the exercise of discretion. See Matter ofArguelles, 22 l&N
Dec. 811, 817 (BIA 1999); 8 C.F.R. 1240.26(b) and (c).
Accordingly, the following order will be entered.
ORDER: The record is remanded for fuer proceedings consistent with the foregoing
opinion and for the entry of a new decision.

It appears the Immigration Judge misread the information found in the Form I-213 (Exh. 2) to
form an erroneous conclusion that the respondent had been convicted of several offenses, when the
Form 1-213 actually stated that all criminal charges had been dismissed.
2
Cite as: Pete Teichroeb-Peters, A093 518 654 (BIA Jan. 13, 2017)

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

may have been entitled. See 8 C.F.R. 1240. lO(c). In this regard, we note the record (Tr. at 7-8)
reflcts that at the hearing held on August 24, 2016, the respondent, in response to questions posed
by the Immigration Judge, admitted that he was not a national or citizen of the United States, that
he had been admitted to the United States on a visitor's visa in March 2014, and that he had
remained in the United States beyond the period authorized. On the basis of the respondent's
admissions to the factual allegations in the NTA, the Immigration Judge properly found the
respondent removable subject to removal as charged in the NTA. Thus, we find no support for
respondent's contention that he was denied due process and a full and fair hearing on this basis.

..
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
DALLAS, TEXAS

In the Matter of
)
)
)
)

PETE TEICHROEB-PETERS
RESPONDENT

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

Section 237(a)(1 )(B) and 237(a)(1)(C) of the Act.

CHARGES:
APPLICATIONS:

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: PRO SE

ON BEHALF OF DHS: LEVI THOMAS, Esquire
Assistant Chief Counsel
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Office of the Chief Counsel
125 E. John Carpenter Freeway, Suite 500
Irving, Texas 75062

DECISION AND ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

Respondent is a native of Belize and a citizen of Mexico. The present action
commenced when the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear
dated July 5, 2016. The Notice was served on respondent on the same date. [Exhibit
1].
In the Notice to Appear, the Department alleged that respondent was subject to

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

September 1, 2016

File: A093-518-654

removal from the United States since he was admitted to the United States at Ysleta,
Texas, on or about March 17, 2014, as a non-immigrant 8-2 visitor with authorization to

Department alleges that respondent remained beyond that time without permission.
Thus, the Department alleges that respondent is subject to removal from the United
States under the provisions of Section 237(a)(1)(8) (overstay) and 237(a)(1)(C)(i) of the
Act (failing to comply with conditions of status).
Respondent first came before the Court on August 1, 2016. At that time,
respondent's rights were explained to him in both English and Spanish. 1 At the August
1, 2016, hearing, respondent asked for time to contact his family and to get his bond
paid. The matter was reset to August 24, 2016.
At the August 24, 2016 hearing, respondent again asked for additional time to
contact family so his bond could be paid. The Court postponed the hearing to
September 1, 2016, and expressly advised respondent that his hearing would proceed
on that date whether he was still in custody or not or whether he had an attorney or not.
Respondent again came before the Court on September 1, 2016. Respondent
again asked for additional time so he could contact his cousin to pay his bond.
Respondent explained that his cousin "is a very busy man." The Court denied
respondent's third request for a continuance.
Pleadings were taken. Respondent admitted the factual allegations in the Notice
to Appear. The Department of Homeland Security for its part submitted a Form 1-213,
which is contained in the record as Exhibit 2. The Court notes that within the 1-213 that
respondent was arrested for deadly conduct, discharge of a firearm, for shooting a
weapon inside city limits in Gaines County, Texas.
1 Respondent elected to proceed with his hearing in English.

A093-518-654

September 1, 2016

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

remain in the United States for a temporary period not to exceed six months. The

Removability was established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent

designated Mexico as the country of return. Respondent expressed no fear of returning

There does not appear to be any relief available to respondent. The Court would
have denied a request for voluntary departure under safeguards based on the discharge
of a firearm charge. Respondent has not been in the country long enough to seek
cancellation of removal, and does not appear to have any means through which he can
adjust his status. Respondent's failure to express any fear of returning to Mexico
precludes asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention against
Torture.2
In the absence of any relief before this Court, the following order is entered.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that respondent having previously been found subject to
removal by clear and convincing evidence and in the absence of any viable applications
for relief before this Court be, and is, hereby ordered removed from the United States to
Mexico based on the charges contained in the Notice to Appear.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the previously set bond by the Department of
Homeland Security is hereby revoked based on the above order.
Dallas, Texas, this 1st day of September 2016.

Please see the next page for electronic

signature

JAMES NUGENT

At the end of proceedings respondent asked if he could apply for asylum. Based on his earlier
comments, the Court declined to allow respondent to make such an application.

A093-518-654

September 1, 2016

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

to Mexico, stating only that he 11 had no family there. 11

"
t '

Immigration Judge

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

September 1, 2016

A093-518-654

..

/Isl/
Immigration Judge JAMES NUGENT

A093-518-654

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

nugentj on October 31, 2016 at 5:04 PM GMT

September 1, 2016