Enow, Kell, Esq

Enow & Associates

2470 Windy Hill Road, #138
Marietta, GA 30067
Name: PELI, MARIEN
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review
Board <llmmigration Appeals
Office of the Clerk
J7l.ccxhurgltkc, ullcJ
Iolvtm rch, lrglno JJ4l
OHS
/
ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel -ATL
180 Spring Street, Suite 332
Atlanta, GA 30303
A 099-273-416
Date of this notice:
5/
31/
2013
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Guendelsberger, John
Hofman, Sharon
Manuel, Elise
Sincerely,
Don c t
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
schuckec
Userteam: Docket
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: Marie N. Peli, A099 273 416 (BIA May 31, 2013)
U.S:Deparment of Justice
Exe Ofc for Imgton Revew
FalCuh Vi 2201
File: A099 273 416 -Alanta, GA
I re: MN. PELI
I ROVAL PROCEIGS
APEAL
ON BEHLF OF RSPONE: Kell Enow, Esquire
ON BEF OF DHS:
APLICATON: Reopening
Jill K. Krishnan
Assisnt Chief Counsel
Deson of t Bod of Imgon Ap
Date:
MAY 31 2013
The responden, a natve and citizen of Cameoon, h appeale the Immigation Judge's
decision of August 2, 2012. I that deision, te Imigation Judge denie the respondet's
motion t repen ad rescind the in absentia order of removal entere on April 18, 2012. Te
Deparment of Homeland Security (HS) has fled a bref in opposition to the appeal. The
appeal will be susaine and the record wll be remade.
We reiew Imigtion Judges' fndings of fact fr clear eror, but quesions of law,
discion a judgent, ad alothe issues in appes, de novo. 8 C.F.R. 1003. l(d)(3)(i)-(ii).
Under the totality of the circumstances, upon de novo review, we cnclude that the
respondet estalished exceptional circumstances fr he failure to appe in a tmely fshion fr
the rescheduled heng on April 18, 2012.
1
Seons 240(b)(5)(C) ad (e)(I) of the Imigaon
ad Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5XC), (e)(l); 8 C.F.R. 1003.23(b)(4)ii). The
respondet had appeed at two pror heings, was potentally eligible fr adjusmen of ss
based on her mriae to a Unite Staes citizen, and appaently h no motve t avoid the
rescheduled Arl 18, 2012, hearing. She fled her motion i a timely er, which exlained
the unique circumsances that resulted in her failure to appe. The fllowing order will be
enteed.
ORE: The appeal is sustained, the in absenta orer is vacated, proceings are
reopened, ad the rerd is remande to the Imigation Judge fr fher procedings.
FOR T BOARD
We also note t it is impossible fr the Boa to deene i notice that the heng was
reschedule fom Aril 19, 2012, to April 18, 2012, was properly se on at orey Echols, as
the Imigation Judge fund, where the rord frade to the Boad does not cntain a For
EOil-28 (otce of Appeance) fle by atorey Echols.
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: Marie N. Peli, A099 273 416 (BIA May 31, 2013)
.
= ,
f
' '
: .
IN THE MA TER OF:
PELI, Marie
RESPONDENT
CTED STATES DEPARTMENT (STICE
EXCUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT
180 Spring Street Suite 241
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
CASE NO.
A 099-273-416
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
ON BEHALF OF RSPONDENT: Kell Enow, Esq
ON BEHALF OF DHS: Jill Jensen, Assistant Chief Counsel
DECISION ON A MOTION
A Motion to Reopen/escind has been filed by the Respondent in the above-referenced case. DHS opposes
the motion. The motion has been duly considered and, fr reasons explained more flly below, the motion will be
denied.
BACKGROUND
By a hearing notice dated December 13, 2011, which was mailed to Respondent's attorey of record, the
Cour scheuled a hearing in this case fr April 18, 2012. On April 18, 2012, Respondent's attorey of record, Eli
Echols, appeared in Court. Respondent filed to appear at the scheduled hearing on April 18, 2012, and she was
ordered removed in absentia.
Approximately three months later, on July 17, 2012, Respondent fled the instant motion to reopen. OHS
has fled an opposition.
DISCUSSION
The Immigration and Nationality Act ("IA") provides that an order of removal entered in absentia in
removal proceedings may be rescinded at any time, upon a motion to reopen, if the alien demonstrates that he or
she did not receive notice in accordance with section 239(a) of the Act. INA 240(b)(5)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R.
1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (2007). However, if an alien received notice of the hearing, he or she must (I) fle a motion to
reopen within 180 days of the date of the order of removal and (2) demonstrate that the filure to appear was due
to "exceptional circumstances." IA 240(b )( 5)(C)(i); 8 C.F .R. 1003 .23(b )( 4 )(ii) (2007). The ter "exceptional
circumstances" is defned as "circumstances such as batter or extreme cruelty to the alien or any child or parent
of the alien, serious illness of the alien or serious illness or death of the spouse, child, or parent of the alien, but not
including less compelling circumstances [even if beyond the control of the alien." INA 240(e)(l).
Pursuant to applicable regulations, notice to counsel constitutes notice to Respondent. 8 C.F.R.
1003.26(c)(2); see also Matter of Barocio, 19 I&N Dec. 255 (BIA 1985) (holding that notice to an alien's counsel
constitutes notice to the alien). In this case, the record reflects that the hearing notice was mailed to Respondent's
counsel, who appeared in Court on April 18, 2012. Respondent's motion indicates that her then-attorey, Eli Echols,
contacted her and advised her of the hearing on April 18, 2012. The Court fnds that notice of the hearing was
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

z
properly provided t9 the Respondent.
Respondent contends that she failed to appear due to exceptional circumstances. Respondent's contentions
are without merit.
Respondent says that sometime afer the death of attorey Akuoko on Februar 11, 2012 and befre the
scheduled hearing on April 18, 2012, she hired her present attorey, Kell Enow, to represent her in these
proceedings.
1
In the motion, Respondent's present attorey, Mr. Enow, has not explained why he did not fle an
entry of appearance upon allegedly being retained by Respondent.
Moreover, although Mr. Enow claims he was aware of the April 18th hearing, he has not explained why he
did not seek a continuance, call the Cour on April 18th, call Mr. Echols (the attorey of record) or appea in Court
on the hearing date.
3
Moreover, as discussed above, there is no evidence that Mr. Enow contacted the prior attorey
to inquire regarding the status of the case or about the April 18th hearing.
In the motion, Respondent suggests that Mr. Akuoko was hired to represent her during
removal proceedings and states that she is not sure if Mr. Akuoko entered an appearace in this
case. The record shows that Mr. Akuoko was retained to represent Respondent in connection
with the appeal of the denial of the 1-130 visa petition, and that he filed the appeal on Februa 9,
2012. See Motion at page 72. Contrary to Respondent's suggestion, there is no evidence that Mr.
Akuoko was hired to represent Respondent in these proceedings or that he fled an entry of
appearance in this case.
Pursuant to the Immigration Practice Manual, an attorey must fle a For EOIR 28.
Mr. Enow fled an EOIR 28 on April 18, 2012 at 2:56 pm.
3
Mr. Enow vaguely asserts that, on April 18, 2012, while he was preparing fr the
hearing, he checked the automated system and leaed that the hearing was actually scheduled fr
April 18, 2012 at 9. 30 d. Counsel fils to state the date on which he was allegedly hired to
represent Respondent and why, upon being retained, he never either contacted Mr. Echols or
checked the automated system.
The Court is also mindfl that the motion states that Respondent contacted Mr. Echols
and "he indicated that he frwarded the hearing notice to Respondent at her last know address."
Motion at page 2. Since the hearing notice was mailed to Mr. Echols on December 13, 2011, it
appears that Respondent must have known sometime in late December 2011 that a new hearing
notice was issued.
Since Mr. Echols told Respondent that the new hearing notice was being sent to her,
Respondent has not explained why (1) she did not fllow up with Mr. Echols when she did not
receive the hearing notice and (2) did not tell Mr. Enow, when she allegedly hired him, that she
had been told by Mr. Echols that a new hearing notice was issued. Finally, it seems implausible
that Mr. Echols would have told Respondent that a new hearing notice was issued, but did not
also tell Respondent that the new hearing notice was issued because the date of the hearing was
changed to April 18, 2012.
Page -2-
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
N `
Respondents afdavit and other pars of the record contain only vague allegations regarding Respondent's
assertion that she hired Mr. Enow to represent her at the April 18th hearing. For example, Respondent's afdavit
states "[a]fer Mr. Yaw Akuoko passed away, I hired Mr. Enow Kell and I gave him all of the documents."
However, since a perod of two months elapsed between Mr. Akuoko's passing and the April 18th hearing, the Cour
is lef to speculate as to the date Mr. Enow was allegedly hired. Moreover, Respondent's afdavit fails to indicate
that, when she hired M. Enow, she infrmed him that a new hearing notice had been issued and that Mr. Echols
had mailed the new hearing notice to Respondent's last known address.
4
In view of the fregoing, Respondent has
not shown that she did not know, or could not reasonably have know, of the April 18th hearing date.
Assuming that Mr. Enow represented Respondent at the time of the April 18th hearing, the record in this
case fails to show diligence by Respondent. In this regard, there is no explanation as to why Respondent waited
ap roximately three months to fle a motion to reopen.
In sum, Respondent's afdavit contains assertions that seem contrary to the fcts of this case. The Court
fnds that Respondent was made aware of the new hearing date. Respondent has not shown exceptional
circumstances based on lack of notice, heavy trafc, or any circumstance beyond her contol.
To the extent that Respondent, through counsel, implies that she received inefective asistance of counsel,
she has not complied with Matter of Lozda, 1988 WL 235454, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 ( 1988).
5
Also, Respondent's afdavit states that Mr. Enow called Mr. Echols' ofce.
Interestingly, Mr. Enow makes no mention of such a telephone conversation.
The Court acknowledges that, in a response to DHS's Opposition, Respondent states
that Mr. Echols is "willing to submit any afdavit to support Respondent's contention that he had
not been in contact with" Respondent. Any such afdavit will be contrary to evidence in this
case. Afer all, as discussed above, the motion to reopen states that Respondent spoke to Mr.
Echols and was told that the new hearing notice will be mailed to Respondent's last known
address and Respondent's afdavit indicates that Respondent and Mr. Enow called Mr. Echols'
ofce and discussed the need fr a G-28 as a prerequisite fr the release of Respondent's fle.
Page -3-
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
.`


In view of th.e fregoing, the Court fnds that Respondent has filed to demonstrate that this matter should
be reopened. Accordingly, the Court will issue the fllowing order:
ORDER
WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's motion to rescind the April 18, 2012 in
absentia order be, and hereby is, DENIED.
August 2, 2012
Page -4-
` ''
-('-
c ~ `-

Earle B. Wilson
U.S. Immigration Judge
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