7/29/2019 Rufino Marquez-Rocha, A201 073 660 (BIA Jan. 29, 2013)

1/3

MARQUEZ-ROCHA, RUFINOMORGAN COUNTY DETENTION211 E. NEWTONVERSAILLES, MO 65084

Name: MARQUEZ-ROCHA, RUFINO

U.S. Department of JusticeExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewBoard of mmigration AppealsOffice of he Clerk5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000Falls Church, Virginia 22041

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel KAN2345 Grand Blvd., Sui te 500Kansas City, MO 64108

A 201-073-660

Date of this notice: 1/29/2013

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

EnclosurePanel Members:Holmes, David B.

Sincerely,DonrtL c .AA.J

Donna CarrChiefClerk

wi!iiarneUserteam: Docket

Cite as: Rufino Marquez-Rocha, A201 073 660 (BIA Jan. 29, 2013)

7/29/2019 Rufino Marquez-Rocha, A201 073 660 (BIA Jan. 29, 2013)

2/3

, A

U.S. Department of JusticeExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewFalls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A201 073 660- Kansas City, MOIn re: RUFINO MARQUEZ-ROCHAIN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGSAPPEALON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Pro seON BEHALF OF DHS:

ORDER:

Jayme SalinardiDeputy Chief Counsel

Decision ofthe Board oflmmigration Appeals

Date: JAN 29Z013

The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals from the October 2, 2012, summaryorder of the Immigration Judge. The appeal will be dismissed.The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) opposes the appeal as untimely filed. Therecord reflects an appeal was due on or before November 1, 2012. The Notice of Appeal (NOA)(Form EOIR-26) is signed and dated October 26, 2012, by the prose respondent. The envelopein the record contains a partially legible date-stamp which reflects the NOA was mailed from thedetention facility on either October 28 or 29, 2012, and date-stamped as received at the Board onNovember 2, 2012. However, the Board's offices were closed on October 29 and 30, 2012, dueto Hurricane Sandy, and the stamped receipt date may have been adversely affected by this

closure. Accordingly, we accept this appeal as timely filed.The DHS also advises us that the respondent was removed from the United States to Mexicoon November 2, 2012. We find that we have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal.

See Diaz-Garcia, 25 I&N Dec. 794 (BIA 2012) (the unlawful removal of an alien during thependency of a direct appeal from a removal order does not deprive the Board of jurisdiction toreview the appeal).Turning to the merits of the respondent's appeal, we affirm the summary decision of theImmigration Judge. We have reviewed the respondent's separate statement submitted on appeal.The respondent does not dispute that he admitted the facts set forth on the Notice to Appear that

establish his removability, nor does the respondent dispute his removability as charged.Although the respondent argues that he is eligible for cancellation of removal, he has notdemonstrated his prima facie eligibility for such relief. See Section 240A(b) of the Immigrationand Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b). Further, his appeal challenges the fairness of anapparent domestic violence case. However, he has not been charged with removability for adomestic violence offense. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

OR THE BOARD

Cite as: Rufino Marquez-Rocha, A201 073 660 (BIA Jan. 29, 2013)

7/29/2019 Rufino Marquez-Rocha, A201 073 660 (BIA Jan. 29, 2013)

3/3