Alexy Nahum Silva Maradiaga, A206 481 827 (BIA Aug. 8, 2016)
Alexy Nahum Silva Maradiaga, A206 481 827 (BIA Aug. 8, 2016)
Alexy Nahum Silva Maradiaga, A206 481 827 (BIA Aug. 8, 2016)
Department of Justice
A 206-481-827
Date of this notice: 8/8/2016
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Pauley, Roger
/ '
Date:
AUG - 8 2016
APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Amanda Bethea Keaveny, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS: Scott D. Criss
Assistant Chief Counsel
CHARGE:
Notice: Sec.
212(a)(6)(A)(i), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)] Present without being admitted or paroled
The respondent appeals the Immigration Judge's May 26, 2015, decision ordering him
removed from the United States. The record will be remanded to the Immigration Judge for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion and for entry of a new decision.
The Immigration Judge has not prepared a separate oral or written decision. Instead, the
Immigration Judge made comments in the transcript to the respondent stating that his conviction
for possession of drug paraphernalia is "a conviction related to a controlled substance" and
advising him that, because of this conviction, he is not eligible for any relief (Tr. at 19). We find
that a separate oral or written decision is warranted in this case. See Matter of A-P-, 22 I&N
Dec. 468 (BIA 1999); Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994).
In particular, we note that, prior to the Immigration Judge's decision, the United States
Supreme Court issued its decision in Mel/ouli v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 1980 (2015). In that case,
which considered an alien's conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia, the Court found
that, in order for an offense to qualify under section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, an element of the
conviction must be related to a drug defined in 21 U.S.C. 802. See id. at 1990-91 (overruling
the Board's decision in Matter of Martinez Espinoza, 25 l&N Dec. 118 (BIA 2009)). Thus, the
Court found that, in order for a drug paraphernalia offense to qualify as an offense under section
237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, it must relate to a controlled substance listed in the Federal Controlled
Substances Act. See id. Presumably, the Immigration Judge's comments regarding the
respondent's conviction were to imply that he could not qualify for relief from removal,
including adjustment of status, due to his conviction for a controlled substances offense under
section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act.
Cite as: Alexy Nahum Silva Maradiaga, A206 481 827 (BIA Aug. 8, 2016)
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion and for entry of a new decision.
THEBO
2
Cite as: Alexy Nahum Silva Maradiaga, A206 481 827 (BIA Aug. 8, 2016)
Accordingly, the record will be remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion and for entry of a new decision.
tr
. ,l
,..
IMMIGRATION COURT
5701 EXECUTIVE CENTER DR. #400
CHARLOTTE, NC 28212
In the Matter of
5)-f,J
;z;
- I.
\&@i@MQ@
JC
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: