I

Flower, Claudia, Esq.

The Law Office of Claudia Flower, PLLC
3137 Mount Vernon Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22305
Name: MARTINEZ, HEYMAN
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Office of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - BAL
31 Hopkins Plaza, Room 1600
Baltimore, MD 21201
A073-661-308
Date of this notice: 7/27/2012
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Miller, Neil P.
Sincerely,
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
tran.;
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Heyman Martinez, A073 661 308 (BIA July 27, 2012)
.
U.s: Department of Justice
. Executive Office for Immigration Review
Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
File: A073 661 308 - Baltimore, MD Date: lJUL 2 7 Z01l
In re: HEYMAN MARTINEZ
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
MOTION
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Claudia Flower, Esquire
This case was last before us on June 28, 2004, at which time we returned the respondent' s
record to the Immigration Court due to the respondent's withdrawal ofhis motion pursuant to section
8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c).
1
Prior to this decision, we had summarily dismissed the respondent's appeal on
January 28, 2004. The respondent has now filed an untimely motion to reopen on June 11, 2012.
The Department of Homeland Security has not responded to the motion, which will be granted
pursuant to our sua sponte under 8 C.F.R. 1003.2{a).
The respondent argues that he obtained derivative citizenship pursuant to section 321{a)(3)
of the Act when he was a teenager, and he has presented photocopies of his green card and birth
certificate, along with a declaration from his mother and a photocopy of her Naturalization
Certificate. We find the respondent' s potential claim to citizenship, in conjunction with the DHS'
lack of opposition, sufficient to support reopening for further exploration of the respondent's claim.
ld Upon remand, we stress that the respondent should present original documentation to
demonstrate that he falls within the parameters of section 32l{a)(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the
following order will be entered.
ORDER: The motion is granted, and the record is remanded to the Immigration Court for
further proceedings consistent with the foregoing decision.
:: e--------
FOR THE BOARD
1
Since this proceeding is governed by the Fourth Circuit precedent, we will consider the motion.
See William v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 329 (4th Cir. 2007).
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Heyman Martinez, A073 661 308 (BIA July 27, 2012)