U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals

Office ofthe Clerk

5107 leesburg Pike, Suite 2000

Fa/ls Church, Virginia 2204/

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

Finn, Maura DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - ATL
Vazquez & Servi, PC 180 Ted Turner Dr., SW, Ste 332
3190 Northeast Expwy. Atlanta, GA 30303
#220
Atlanta, GA 30341

Name: HERNANDEZ-CID, JOSE DE JES ... A 200-277-242

Date of this notice: 9/5/2017

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

Sincerely,

/1
/ : fl. .J
l I

u ,...._.
(..'

Cynthia L. Crosby
Deputy Chief Clerk

Enclosure
Panel Members:
Kendall Clark, Molly

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index

Cite as: Jose De Jesus Hernandez-Cid, A200 277 242 (BIA Sept. 5, 2017)
U.S. Department of Justice Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Executive Office for Im.migration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A200 277 242 - Atlan GA Date:

In re: Jose De Jesus HERNANDEZ-Cid SEP - 5 2017

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Maura Finn, Esquire

ON BEHALF OF OHS: Philip D. Curtis

Assistant Chief Counsel

On April 25, 2017, an Immigration Judge granted the respondent's motion to administratively
close proceedings. The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico who seeks to adjust his status
to that of a lawful permanent resident based upon his marriage to a United States citizen, expressed
his intent to pursue a provisional unlawful presence waiver prior to consular processing.
Administrative closure allows him to pursue this course of action. 8 C.F.R. 212.7(e)(4)(v). The
Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), filed a motion to re-calendar proceedings, which the
Immigration Judge denied on May 24, 2017. The DHS then filed the interlocutory appeal now
before us.

To avoid piecemeal review of the multiple queries that may arise during the course of removal
proceedings, the Board does not ordinarily entertain interlocutory appeals. See Matter ofM-D-,
24 l&N Dec. 138, 139 (BIA 2007), and cases cited tlierein. We have on occasion accepted
interlocutory appeals to address significant jurisdictional questions about the administration of the
immigration laws, or to correct recurring problems in the handling of cases by Immigration Judges.
See, e.g., Matter o/Guevara, 20 l&N Dec. 238 (BIA 1990, 1991); Matter ofDobere, 20 I&N Dec.
188 (BIA 1990).

Notwithstanding the Immigration Judge's denial of the DHS's motion to re-calendar, the DHS
may renew its request before the Immigration Judge based upon developments such as with the
respondent's provisional waiver application, as appropriate. See generally, In Matter ofAvetisyan,
25 l&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. 17 (BIA 2017). It has not been
shown that the issue of administrative closure in this case is representative of a wider recurring
problem in Immigration Judges' handling of cases. TI1e issues raised in this interlocutory appeal
do not fall within the limited ambit of cases where we deem it appropriate to exercise our
jurisdiction.

In light of the foregoing, the following order will be entered.

ORDER: The record will be returned to the Immigration Court with no further action.

BOARD
Cite as: Jose De Jesus Hernandez-Cid, A200 277 242 (BIA Sept. 5, 2017)