Milenko Ilic, A079 845 453 (BIA Nov. 4, 2014)

8/10/2019 Milenko Ilic, A079 845 453 (BIA Nov. 4, 2014)

1/12

Feiertag, Terry Yale, Esq.Hughes Soco Pers Resnick & Dym, Ltd.70 West Madsn St., Ste 4000Chicago, I 60602

Name: I, MLEK

r

Executive Oce r Immigration Revew

B mmigi App k

57 leesburg Pike Suite Fas Church Vrgini 5

OS/IE ffce of hief onsel - C525 Wes Van Bren Streethcago, I 6060

A 09-845-453

Dae of s noce 11/4/2014

losed s a opy of he Boad's deso ad ode n the above-eenced case.

closre

Pl Mb: Hgh GLwz E CCy h

Seely,

Dona Carr

hef Clek

k

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Milenko Ilic, A079 845 453 (BIA Nov. 4, 2014)


2/12

U Depamnt of JusicExecutive Oce r I iation Review

Decision f e Bod ofmation Appeals

Falls Chrch, Virgina 20530

Fie: A079 845 53 Chcago, I

I e: MLNKO LC

MOVAL PROCEIGS

APPAL

Date:

ON BHAL O SONDEN: Tey Yale eieag, Esquire

ON BEHALF OF DHS: Sah E ZeAssistt Chief Cosel

CHARG

NOV - 4 201

Notice: Sec 237()()(A), I&N Act [8 .S.C 1227(a)()(A)] Inamissibe t time of y or adjusent of staus ue sectio212(a)(6)(C)(i), I&N Act 8 SC. 1182(a)(6(C(i -Fau or wll misepesetatio of a mateia ct

APPLCATION: Temiatio

Te Depmet of Homel ecrity (DHS) appes the Immigrtion Jge's October 24,2012, ecisio gtig he espoet's motio o teiate poeeings We will sstai eappeal em e recor to e Immigratio Co.

is appea pesets questios of aw iscetio, which we eview e ovo 8 C.FR 1003.()(3(ii h espondet is a native ad citize of Bosia-Hzegovia e wasadmitted to the ite States i 2001 as a egee In 2004, he adjste his stats to that oflawl pemen resit.

2010, te HS e a Noice to Appe (NTA), alging tat the sponent proce immigatio beet by au or wil misrepresetatio of a matei ct becuse h faile toiscose te te etent of yo past miity seice i yor I-590 I-485 applicatios"(h. 1) The Immigatio Jge agree with he respoden's gumet that is ctaegaio i ot scienty io the respoent of the atre of he chges agast himeae i i o pei ow e aeg ie to oe a wi aeria

he chgig ocmet st speci the act or coc aege o be i vioatio of aw"Sectio 29(a)()(C of te Ac, 8 U.SC. 1229(a()(C) The cta aegatios i hecging ocmet must be scienty epicit to i e aien each istce whaactios wee in vioation of te aw, d wat aw e vioated, so as to enabe him to ot aese" Maer of Che and Hasan, 15 I ec 38, 38 (I 1975 e cggoce sho cotai a coise aemet of ca alegaios iig the aie of the



3/12

. ' A07 45 453

acts or conduc eged to be in iotion of e aw." atter of Ho 12 I&N ec. 56, 517I 167. It os no more obtn drect isdcton over he person of te aen d ei moton nq" ino e lens removb. I. t 51718.

Th raton Jd proprl rqur th DH to nl ddtonl etls eotc to ppe, beyond onse sttement of te ts ed to vote the aw. The NAoes not need o set h det such s how te resondnt's conduct ws wl, nor describehow th aeged fil to dscos nfoation ws mterl to the immigrato benets herespondent sogt. Raher, hose e issues e DH must prove to meet its be ofstblsing th responent's removablt t evdent heing. he N dqyentid cot alleged to violte law, nl failng to dislose t ll extent ofmlt srvce n two spce appltons. his leto s not buous r vage, dlls sttuor rqrent of spcng e ts or onuct" undrl hg oremovi. secton 239aC of e ct

he prsent case s dstngushbe om Macleo v IS, 327 F.2d 45 9h Cr. 1964, uponwhich th respodent reis. In aceo v S, te n Circut d to be ndute ahgng docent lgng h he respondent s bo in th Unted ttes ut was no atzen of d. h co hed at e ging document needd to form e respondenf e ctu s upo wc t ws led e ost hs Unted tts citzenshp, whh n hatase s by votng n Cad. In e present se, the N nfos the respondent of thecta basis po whc t is aeged t he wily msrepreseted mter fa; nly, ipeces tht h ed to dscose e exten of his ml sevce on two piction. he

N does xt wht the co Maceod said needed to be done species he cabass r e che of removbli.

Accordnl, we wil sustn th DH ppel d remd h recor to the Immirono r hr proeedns. In the remd procedns th mmgrtn Jude cdtrmn whthr t evdnc submed b e DH to prove rmovbli relevt drobatve, d hene admssbe.

OER e appeal s susaned, d he reord is remd o the Immgraton Co rer procedns constnt w the regoin pion d r te ent of ne ecsion.

2



4/12

UITED STATES DEPATMET O JUSICE

EXECUIVE OFICE FO IMMIGATIO EVIE

UITED STATES IMIGATIO COUTCHICAGO, IIOIS

Fie: A09-84453

n the Mter of

October 24, 20

MIEKO IIC I EMOVAL POCEIG

ESPODET

CHAGES: Sectn 237 () (1) (A) of the IA, s ended, in

tht t the te f entry or djustent of

sttus, you were thn one or ore of the

csses of lens indissble by the lw

existing t such ie, to wit: iens to seek to

procure, or hve sought to procre, or who hve

procured vis, or ther docuenttion, or

dsson into the Unted Sttes, or otherbeneft provided nder the Act, by frd or by

willfly isrepresenting mter fct, under

Sectin 212 () (6) (C) (i) of the Act.

APP ICAT IOS: Motio to terine proceedngs.

O BEHALF O SPO DT: E LE IETAG

O BEHA O HS: SAAH ZELD

OAL DECISIO OF THE IMMIGATIO JUDGE

The respodent is n dut e, tive of Bsni-

Herzegov s wel s ctizen of tht cotry ccordng to


5/12

the Deprtment of oelnd Security. The Deprtent issued

Notce to Apper on June 3, 2010 s result of the respondent

hving filed n ppliton for nturliztion wth the

Ctizenshp Services rnh. See xhibit 1.

The Deprtent instituted proceedngs on June 3, 2010.

t conceded the fct tht the respondent djusted his sttus of

tht of lwful pernent resident on or bout July 15 2004

under Secton 20) of the Act. When the respondent pplied

for ctizenshp, it ce to the ttenton of the Deprtment of

Hoelnd Security or itizenship rnch, tht the respodent hd

pprentl served in he iltr nd, ccordng to the

Deprtment, they believed ths to be significnt enouh

isrepresenttion th they plced the respondent under reovl

proceedings nd lleged fctull in the Notice to Apper, t

prgrph 5, tht the respondent hd procured hs dsson, his

vis, his djustent or other douentton or benefit, by frud

or willfuly isrepresentng teril fcts. Specificly: he

filed to disclose the true extet of his pst ilitry servce

in hs -0 nd -485 pplictions. See xhbit 1, prgrph

5.

The Deprtent further indicted, t prgrph 7 of

his Notice to Apper, tht ccording to Section 237)1)A) of

1 Not pertinent to the discussion below, the Department did file a separate Notice to Appear also on June 3, 200.

This document appears in the record as Exhibit A. The sbmission of two NTAs did draw an objection from the

respondent based on the fact that the documents were different and there were diferent notations between both

Exhibits (the oficial NTA) and Exhibit A For purposes of this proceeding Exhibit 1 is the Court document which

conrols

A07-845-453 2 October 24, 2012


6/12

the Act, s ended, tht the respondent souht to procre or,

procured, vis or other docuettion, or dission into the

United Sttes, or nother benefit provided b the Act b frud

or by willfull isrepresentin teril fct, under Section

212 () (6) (C) (i) of the INA. See xhibit 1.

Consequentl, the Deprtent chrged tht the

respondent ws reovbe pursunt to the correspondin Section

t 237 () (1) (A) of the INA becue it ws the position o the

Governent tht the respondent ened in rud or willfully

isrepresentin teril fct nder Section 212 () (6) (C) (i) of

the Act.

At his first herin before this udge on stus

c, the respondent obected to the Notice to Apper becuse it

contined certin inccurcies or errors. The respondet hd

pointed ot tht xhibit A ws flwed. It soon ce to the

ttention of this Court tht A ws the docuent tht hd not

been served on this Jde, however, it hd been served on the

respondent. However, the Government nd the Court hd the

pproprite docuent which controls in this cse, which is

xhibit 1. This nonetheless dded to the respondent's concerns

tht soe of the chres in the nstnt cse y not be ccurte

or we spported b the w, nd conseuently requested tie to

file vrious obections to the Notice to Apper nd to the

proceedins itse. Consequentl, proceedigs were continued in

order to low the prties to subit their obections d to

A07-845-453 3 October 24, 2012


7/12

llow the Govrnment to sumit its evdence in the cse

The prties hve sumitted vrious documents. The

Government's sumissins re t grup Exhii 2A throug I

These re documents wich hve en sumitted for identificton

purposes nd hve ee mrked or dentifiction purposes only

After reviewing these documents, the responent filed vrious

ojectons nd motions to r the dmission of evience o th

documents sumitted the Goverment, s well s motion to

strike th otice to pper nd terminte proceedngs ee

Exhiits nd 3, iled on uy 1, 012

On August 16, 2012, th respondent filed n mended

moton to strike the otice to Aper nd termnte proceedings

ee Exhit 6.

The next , on August 17, 2012, the respondent fed

n mended motion to strike the otice to Apper nd terinte

proceedings (identc to the one fied the dy efore) however,

the documnt ws resumitted wt Exhits A n B which were

ndvertetly omitted from the filing the dy efore. Ths s

Exhiit 6.

After the hering, whih set out a refing shedule

requiring prties to file documets wth suffcent tim to

llow ec other to dequtely rspond, the respondent, gin,

on Octoer 4, 202 filed moto to grnt his pending nd

deemed unopposed mended motion to strike the otice to Apper

nd to terminte proceedings nd his ojections nd motons to

A0784553 Octoer 24, 2012


8/12


9/12

n he Noce o Apper "eri. f i is, hen proeedngs

re proper. f s no, hen roceedings s e ermined.

Accoring o the responden, he aleges ha he

Government hs filed o ege ny facts wch wo esbish

he responden's conduc, ney hs eged "fre o

dscose" he exen of hs ps iiry servce, ws

srepresenton h ws ehe wif or eril s

reqired by lw. The responden does cite ungysv. U. S. , 485

U. S. 759 (988): See so Grci v. INS, 31 F. 3d 441 (7th Cr.

14).

he responden frher rges h even f he

responen fe o fy dscose hs prior ilry servce,

whch he does no concede, i dos no necessriy en th hs

fire who ore s "isrpresenion s descrie n

Section 22 () (6) (C) (i), s h "isrepresention st e

er.

n ssessng wheher he respondens rgen hs

eri, this jge oes review he Noice o Apper lon wth

the nne in whch i ws prepred. The oice o Apper,

prgrph , ndictes h he esponen, ccording o he

Governen, h fe o discose he re exen of hs ps

lry service on hs 0 nd -48. ppers, y vrte

of he f egion, h he responen ppers to

poteny hve discosed soe milry servce. s not

qte ce. By the wordng slf, i ppers h the

A07-843 6 October 24, 202


10/12

Governent tkes ssue wth the fct tht the responent d not

dsclose the "true extent of his pst itry servce Ths

rses n issue bout whether the responent ctuly i

isclose prt of hs litry sevice but perhps not enough to

sisfy the Governen. But it oes pper s worde tht

potentilly the respoent i potentilly isclose soe

itry service. Hoever the ssue s whether the prt tht

the respoent fed to scos ws "teril.

Here the Governent kes no further fctul

egtos to estblsh how ths filure to sclose te "rue

extent of hs ility servce is ter to the purported

isrepresntton. t cn be ter if hs pst liry

service ws soehow iltry servce tht nvolve soe type o

potet trocites. However tht s n open questio. As it

s rfte t prgrph 5 of Exhbt 1 t is not cler whether

t is tril tht the respondet filed to isclose the true

extent of hs litry service. As the responent rgues we

re left to speculte on the eeents necessry to eterne

wht in fct the responent fld to fuly "iscose. A

seprte issue s whether there s ctionle fru or

isrepesenttion gven the wording in the otce to Apper.

The respoent rgues tht the istinction s crticlly

iportnt nd fe to the Governent's chrge of reovbity

s the Bor hs foun tht n ens slece or fure to

volunteer inforton oes not n nd of tself consttute

A07845-53 October 4 01


11/12

materal msrepresentaton for prposes of determning

nadmssiblity under INA Secto 212(a) (6) (C) (i), beca se

sience itsef "does not estabish a conscience concealment or

frad n msrepresentaton. " See Matter of G-, 6 I&N De. 9 (BIA

1953), superseded on other ssues by M atter of FM-, 7 &N Dec.

420 (BIA 1957); see aso 9 Foregn Affars Manua (FAM) 40. 63

. 4. 2.

qay probemat s the Government's faire to

aege spef fa ts whh, f proven, woud estabsh tha t the

respondents "fa ire to dslose, even f found to e "a

msrepresentaton, wa s ether wlf or matera for prposes

of estabshng removabty n the United States. In order for

the respodent's aeged fare to dislose to be "wllfu,

the Goverment mst aege, at mnimm, that the responent wa s

"fy aware the natre of the formaton soght and kowngy,

intentonay, and deiberatey isrepresented the matera

fa ts. ee Ma tter of G-G-, 7 I& e. 161 (B IA 156).

Conseqently, ths Cort s of the beef tha t the respondent

has meritorosy argued that pont.

n addition, the respodent ponts out tha t the

Government has faled to identf how the respondent's alleged

"falre to dsose was "materia as requred by a pan

readng o A Seton 212 (a ) (6) (C) (). The Supreme Court has

fond that a fase statement n and of tself s not enough to

prove that a misrepresentation was ma tera. Ra ther, where a

A07845-453 8 Otober 24, 201


12/12

fse sttement hs been mde, ust e shown to hve been

predctaby capable f affectng the decsn-makng body fr it

to be mtr. See ungysv. U. S. , 485 U. S. 759 (1988). And

consequeny, the Government's sserton is tht he egedy

fied to dscose te true extet of hs pror mitry servce

is nsufficent to me prm fcie shwng tht this ctn,

even f true, wud munt to misrepresentton tht ws

"wifu nd "teri fr purpses of removbity under the

A.

Consequenty, bsed on the rguents set forth by the

respondent, ths Juge beieves tht they hve mert nd

consequenty w terinte prceedings to the extent tht the

chrge hs not sufficenty estbsh mterity for the

resons stted n the proceedng prgrphs.

OR

T S HRY ORDR tht the respndent's mtn t

termnte s hereby grnted nd proceedngs re terminted.

Dte: October 24, 22

CLOS CUVAS

igrton Judge

2 The parties have submitted ariou motions as reflected at the outset Some of tese motions ae attacked te

suficiency of the evidence submittd by the Department Some of the motions actually appeared to have mert

Howeer, for prposes of resolutio of this matter, this ourt does not believe it necessary to go through and

discuss each and eery one of those objections despite he potential merit to them because proeedings and the

stated iolation of the act by the respondent is not matrial This resoles te entire matter Consequently, the

objections themseles have not ben discussed

A07845453 October 24, 202

Milenko Ilic, A079 845 453 (BIA Nov. 4, 2014)

Documents

Transcript of Milenko Ilic, A079 845 453 (BIA Nov. 4, 2014)