U.S.

Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office ofthe Clerk

5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 12041

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel 167 N. Main St., Room 1036 Memphis, TN 38103

MEM

Name: CARRERA-LUCIANO, ABRIL

A088-749-575

Date of this notice: 1/20/2011

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

Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members: King, Carol

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Abril Carrera-Luciano, A088 749 575 (BIA Jan. 20, 2011)

Executive Office for Immigration Review

p.s. Deprtmen of Justice

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

rrginia 22041 Falls Cbwch, V

File: A088 749 575 - Memphis, TN Date:

JAN .2 0 2011
Abril Carrera

In re: ABRIL CARRERA-LUCIANO a.k.a. IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF OHS: Pro se Rook Moore Assistant Chief Counsel APPLICATION: Termination

The Department ofHomeland Security appeals from a decision dated December 17, 2009, by the Immigration Judge in which he terminated proceedings. The appeal will be dismissed. The Immigration Judge terminated proceedings based upon the evidence of record which indicates that the respondent voluntarily returned to Mexico.
In reaching this conclusion, the

Immigration Judge determined that the evidence adequately established that the respondent departed from the United States and has not returned to the United States. In view ofthese circumstances and the absence of evidence to establish that she departed to circumvent the process, we agree that the respondent no longer is removable as charged under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as: Abril Carrera-Luciano, A088 749 575 (BIA Jan. 20, 2011)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT Memphis, Tennessee File No.: A 088 749 575 December 17, 2009

In the Matter of CARRERA-LUCIANO, ABRIL IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

Respondent

CHARGE:

212(a) {6) {A) {1),

present without inspection.

APPLICATIONS:

Termination of proceedings.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Marisol Ayala

ON BEHALF OF DHS: Rook Moore, t::iy-.

db J; "r

-k;e.;."

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE The respondent was personally served with a Notice to Appear in this case, and a finding was made based on the I-213, that she

is removable as charged under 212{a){6){A) {1) of the Act. Respondent obviously, to Mexico on her own. hearings, removed, without advise from counsel, returned

Ms. Ayala has been present at the last two

trying to prevent respondent from being ordered arguing that she has returned to Mexico. Exhibit 2 is the I-213; Exhibit 1 is is the but

the Notice to Appear; latest hearing notice, was received by Ms.

Exhibit 3

which was not received by respondent, her obliger,

Ayala,

since respondent was not

("*1\
I

in the country at the time.

And Exhibit 4 will be a document Mexico, certifying that

from the mayor's office in Vera Cruz,

respondent was present in that office on September 3,

2009.

We

also have the letter from Ms. Carrera showing the return address that she mailed it to Ms. Ayala on September

17,

2009.

I find

that that is good evidence that respondent has left the country and the Court is inclined to terminate proceedings. The

Government attorney is arguing that what respondent is doing is not the way it is supposed to work, which is true. And also that I

she could be doing this to circumvent the Immigration process. really do not think that is the case; obviously we if we had

someone who has a serious criminal charge and just leaves the country that he should not just have his case terminated. this is a case where if Ms. Court, Carrera were present before the But if

I cannot imagine any reason why she would not be granted So, she is not attempting to

pre-hearing voluntary departure. circumvent anything.

The whole purpose of the removal process is

to secure the removal of aliens from the United States. Respondent has done exactly that. I think the Government should In any event, and certainly

be pleased with the success of its system. although Mr.

Moore's arguments are well-taken,

would apply in some cases,

I do not believe they apply in this

case and I will terminate proceedings.

A 088 749 575

Deceinber 17,

2009

ORDERS IT IS HEREBY ORDERED I deny the request for an in absentia order and I terminate proceedings without prejudice.

Immigration Judge December 17, 2009

A 088 749 575

December 17,

2009

CERTIFICATE PAGE

hereby

certify

that

the

attached

proceeding

before

JUDGE LAWRENCE BURMAN,

in the matter of: ABRIL

CARRERA-LUCIANO,

A 088 749 575 Memphis, Tennessee

is an accurate, verbatim transcript of the recording as provided by the Executive Office for Immigration Review and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file for Immigration Review. of the Executive Office

Janet B. Malphrus, Free State Report

February 8, 2010 {completion date)

By submission of this CERTIFICATE PAGE, the Contractor certifies that a Sony BEC/T-147, 4-channel transcriber or equivalent and/or CD, as described in Section C, paragraph C.3.3.2 of the contract, was used to transcribe the Record of Proceeding shown in the above paragraph.