Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Department of Justice
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,
Dervu.., C t1AA)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Grant, Edward R.
Userteam: Docket
Cite as: Stefano Righi, A200 386 011 (BIA Jan. 26, 2017)
U.S. Department of Justice Decision of the Board oflmmigration Appeals
. Executive Office for Immigration Review
APPLICATION: Termination
The respondent, a native and citizen of Italy, appeals from the Immigration Judge's
decision dated April 8,2016,denying his request to reopen proceedings. The respondent also
moves to remand based on new evidence. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not
filed an appeal brief or a response to the motion to remand. The motion to remand will be
granted,and the case will be remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings.
The respondent was ordered removed on February 11,2016,based on the charge listed in
the Notice to Appear. On April 8, 2016,the Immigration Judge denied the respondent's motion
to reopen based on a March 7 ,2016, decision by a Florida state court granting his motion to
vacate his criminal conviction for possession of marijuana. In the decision denying the motion to
reopen, the Immigration Judge noted that the printout from the Florida Clerk of Court was
insufficient to establish that the respondent's conviction was vacated on constitutional grounds.
The Immigration Judge further noted that he would entertain another motion to reopen if copies
of the motion to vacate and the order vacating the criminal conviction were provided.
On appeal, the respondent requests a remand for further consideration. The respondent
submits with his motion an August 26, 2016,state court order vacating his conviction "per the
stipulation of both parties," and a stipulated motion to vacate plea, judgment,and sentence. The
stipulated motion notes that the "basis for the stipulation was the potential disclosure of a
confidential informant ...and a possible violation of defendant Righi's 6th amendment rights."
In view of the new evidence, and the lack of any opposition by the DHS,we find it appropriate
to remand the case for further consideration of the respondent's removability from the United
States. See Matter ofPickering, 24 l&N Dec.272 (BIA 2003).
Accordingly, the motion to remand will be granted.
ORDER: The motion to remand is granted.
Cite as: Stefano Righi, A200 386 011 (BIA Jan. 26, 2017)
A200 386 011
2
Cite as: Stefano Righi, A200 386 011 (BIA Jan. 26, 2017)
./
,,..
I
File A200-386-011
Sincerely,
SM ------------- UL
Imrnigration Court Clerk
cc: MARGARITA CIMADEVILLA, ACC
KROME SERVICE PROCESSING CENTER
18201 SW 12TH STREET
MIAMI, FL 33194
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMMIGRATION COURT
MIAMI, FLORIDA
2) Other:______________________
THEREFORE, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the motion be:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE