Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 585 (BIA 2022) Interim Decision #4047 Matter of Augustine NCHIFOR, Respondent Decided June 24, 2022 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals A respondent who raises an objection to missing time or place information in a notice to appear for the first time in a motion to reopen has forfeited that objection. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Jeffrey B. Rubin, Esquire, Boston, Massachusetts FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Robert Weir, Assistant Chief Counsel BEFORE: Board Panel: MALPHRUS, Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge; CREPPY and LIEBOWITZ, Appellate Immigration Judges. MALPHRUS, Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge: This case was last before us on May 11, 2021, when we dismissed the respondent’s appeal from an Immigration Judge’s decision denying his applications for relief from removal and ordering him removed. On June 16, 2021, the respondent timely filed a motion to reopen his proceedings in light of Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), and, upon reopening, terminate the proceedings. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) opposes the motion. Although termination is not warranted, we will grant the motion to reopen in part and remand the record to consider the respondent’s eligibility for voluntary departure. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The respondent is a native and citizen of Cameroon who, at the time he applied for admission to the United States, lacked valid immigration documents. On October 9, 2019, DHS personally served him with a notice to appear, which ordered him to appear before the Immigration Court in Jena, Louisiana, on a date and time to be set. The respondent received a subsequent notice of hearing informing him that his first hearing was scheduled to take place on December 20, 2019. 1 The respondent appeared for this hearing. 1 Removal proceedings before the Immigration Judge in this matter were completed in Jonesboro, Louisiana, where the respondent was located and the hearing was docketed. 585 Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 585 (BIA 2022) Interim Decision #4047 Additional notices of hearing were served on the respondent informing him of the dates of his subsequent hearings. The respondent obtained counsel, conceded his removability, applied for relief from removal, and appeared for all of his hearings as scheduled. In a decision dated April 2, 2020, the Immigration Judge concluded that the respondent was removable as charged and, after conducting a merits hearing, denied his applications for relief. We dismissed the respondent’s appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision, and the respondent timely filed the instant motion to reopen. II. ANALYSIS The respondent’s timely motion is not premised on previously unavailable, material evidence. See section 240(c)(7)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B) (2018); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2021). The notice to appear, which did not specify the time or date of his initial hearing, was personally served on the respondent and in the record throughout proceedings. Rather, the respondent argues that the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Niz-Chavez 2 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals