U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals

Office ofthe Clerk

5107 Leesburg Pike. Suite 2000

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

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

Fontes, Martin Cayetano OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - LOS
FonteslFigueroa Law Group, APC 606 S. Olive Street, 8th Floor
2677 N Main St., Ste. 820 Los Angeles, CA 90014
Santa Ana, CA 92705

Name: BARNES, BLANCA DORIS A 094-293-314

Date of this notice: 12/1/2017

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

Sincerely,

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members:
Kendall Clark, Molly

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index

Cite as: Blanca Doris Barnes, A094 293 314 (BIA Dec. 1, 2017)
U.S. Department of Justice Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A094 293 314 - Los Angeles, CA Date:

DEC - 1 2017
In re: Blanca Doris BARNES

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Martin C. Fontes, Esquire

ON BEHALF OF DHS: Eryk Escobar

Assistant Chief Counsel

The Department of Homeland Security (OHS) has filed an interlocutory appeal of an

Immigration Judge's August 2, 2017, order that administratively closed removal proceedings. The
purpose of such closure was so that the respondent, a native and citizen of Honduras, could seek a
provisional waiver of unlawful presence from the United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS). See 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e). It is undisputed that the respondent has an approved
visa petition based upon her marriage to a United States citizen.

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 of M-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 ofGuevara, 20 l&N Dec. 238 (BIA 1990, 1991); Matter ofDobere, 20 l&N Dec.
188 (BIA 1990).

The Immigration Judge noted that the respondent has been married since 2005, and that the
respondent's spouse is reportedly paraplegic. Notwithstanding the DHS's appellate arguments, it
has not identified any potential adverse factors weighing against administrative closure, and is not
prevented from moving to re-calendar proceedings in the future before the Immigration Judge.
The issue currently presented in this case does not present a significant jurisdictional question
about the administration of the immigration laws, nor does it involve a recurring problem in
Immigration Judges' handling of cases. Thus, the question raised in this interlocutory appeal does
not fall within the limited ambit of cases where we deem it appropriate to exercise our jurisdiction.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the record be returned to the Immigration Court without
further action.

�\d.d.).\0-� FOR THE BOARD

Cite as: Blanca Doris Barnes, A094 293 314 (BIA Dec. 1, 2017)