U.S. Department of Justice Executi ve Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk 5107 l eesburg Pike, S11ile 2000 Falls Church, f'irgi11ia 220./1

Kazmi, Humza Ahmed The HMA Law Firm 7926 Jones Branch Drive Suite 600 McLean, VA 22102

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - CHL 5701 Executive Ctr Dr., Ste 300 Charlotte, NC 28212

Name ·

A

Date of this notice: 11/6/2017

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

Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enc losure Panel Members : Guendelsberger, John Kendall Clark, Molly Grant, Edward R.

Userteam: Docket

U.S. Department of Justice

Decision of the Board oflmmigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A:

- Charlotte, NC

Date:

NOV - 6 2017

In re: IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Humza Ahmed Kazmi, Esquire APPLICATION: Asylum; withholding of removal ; Convention Against Torture

The respondent, a native and citizen of Egypt, appeals from the Immigration Judge' s September 30, 2016, decision, denying the respondent's applications for asylum, withholding of removal , and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Department of Homeland Security has not filed a brief. The record will be remanded. This case was last before the Board on June 22, 2016, when we granted the respondent's motion to reconsider our January 29, 2016, decision dismissing the respondent's appeal. We remanded the record to allow the respondent to submit pre-existing declarations, as he requested at the end of his merits hearing, in accordance with the guidance provided in our intervening decision in Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516 (BIA 2015). We also ordered that the prior decisions of the Board and Immigration Judge be vacated. In the Immigration Judge's decision now before the Board on appeal, the Immigration Judge applied Matter of L-A-C-, as requested, but did not admit the pre-existing declarations as evidence in this proceeding. The Immigration Judge found that the respondent already had several opportunities to submit such evidence (IJ at 4, Sept. 30, 2016). Further, rather than issue a new decision, the Immigration Judge adopted and incorporated by reference his December 18, 2014, decision, which had been vacated. in which he denied the respondent's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge's most recent decision also references and relies on our previous decision, also vacated, dismissing the first appeal. The Immigration Judge's reliance on, adoption of, or incorporation of his or the Board' s previous decisions in this case was in error in light of our June 22, 2016, order vacating these decisions. Accordingly, we will vacate the Immigration Judge's decision and remand the record to the Immigration Judge. The Immigration Judge should conduct a new hearing, consider any additional evidence, including the pre-existing documents, and issue a new decision, as previously directed. ORDER: The Immigration Judge's September 30, 2016, decision is vacated.

A

FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Court for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision.

2