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

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

Elsharnoby, Mohamed OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - DET
Elsharnoby & Associates, PC. 333 Mt. Elliott St., Rm. 204
12824 Ford Rd Detroit, Ml 48207
Dearborn, Ml 48126

Name: I , R Y A -459

Date of this notice: 10/31/2017

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

Sincerely,

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members:
Guendelsberger, John

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index

Cite as: R-Y-I-, AXXX XXX 459 (BIA Oct. 31, 2017)
 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

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

I , R Y OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - DET
459 333 Mt. Elliott St., Rm. 204
C/O OHS CUSTODY Detroit, Ml 48207
NE OHIO CORRECTIONAL CENTER
2240 HUBBARD RD
YOUNGSTOWN, OH 44505

Name: ISRAEL, RIMON YOUSIF A -459

Date of this notice: 10/31/2017

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision in the above-referenced case. This copy is being
provided to you as a courtesy. Your attorney or representative has been served with this
decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1292.S(a). If the attached decision orders that you be
removed from the United States or affirms an Immigration Judge's decision ordering that you
be removed, any petition for review of the attached decision must be filed with and received
by the appropriate court of appeals within 30 days of the date of the decision.

Sincerely,

D&utL ct1/V1.)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members:
Guendelsberger, John

I
' '

Userteam: ' .. <

Cite as: R-Y-I-, AXXX XXX 459 (BIA Oct. 31, 2017)
U.S. Department of Justice Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 2204 l

File: 459 Detroit, MI Date:

QCl 3 \ 1011
-

In re: Y I

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Mohamed Elsharnoby, Esquire

ON BEHALF OF OHS: Jason A. Ritter

Assistant Chief Counsel

The Department of Homeland Security has filed an interlocutory appeal from the Immigration
Judge's order of August 17, 2017, granting the respondent's motion to reopen proceedings and
scheduling an individual hearing on the respondent's application for deferral of removal under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). 1

An appeal from an Immigration Judge's grant of a motion to reopen is an interlocutory appeal.

Matter of Correa, 19 I&N Dec. 130 (BIA 1984). To avoid piecemeal review of the multiple
queries that may arise during the course of removal proceedings, ordinarily the Board does not
entertain interlocutory appeals. See Matter ofM-D-, 24 l&N Dec. 138, 139 (BIA 2007), and cases
cited therein. 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 of Guevara, 20 I&N
Dec. 238 (BIA 1990, 1991); Matter ofDobere, 20 I&N Dec. 188 (BIA 1990).

We acknowledge that the OHS has filed interlocutory appeals in a number of cases, involving
Chaldean Christians from Iraq, similar to this one, where an Immigration Judge granted untimely
motions to reopen based on changed country conditions. We also acknowledge the OHS argwnent
that the Immigration Judge improperly took administrative notice of evidence apparently
submitted in other Chaldean Christian cases. However, the decision to reopen this case and allow
a hearing is, as the Immigration Judge stated in granting reopening, not a finding that the
respondent has established eligibility for deferral of removal; it is only a finding that the respondent
has met his burden of showing prima facie eligibility for such protection. Setting aside the
Immigration Judge's reliance on outside evidence, we find, based on the arguments and evidence
presented, that there is not an adequate basis for accepting this interlocutory appeal. The OHS will
have an opportunity to contest the merits of the respondent's request for deferral of removal below.

Accordingly, the following order will be entered.

1 The respondent had previously filed an appeal from a prior order of the Immigration Judge dated
July 20, 2017, in which the Immigration Judge initially denied the respondent's motion to reopen.
As the Immigration Judge subsequently granted the motion to reopen that appeal is now moot.

Cite as: R-Y-I-, AXXX XXX 459 (BIA Oct. 31, 2017)
 A

459
J

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

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

Cite as: R-Y-I-, AXXX XXX 459 (BIA Oct. 31, 2017)