Thursday, June 14th, 2018

Unpub. CA5 Remand Victory: Ramnarine v. Holder

"The BIA  certainly did not abuse its discretion in determining cancellation of removal would “likely” be denied  due to Ramnarine’s and Raymond’s history of immigration fraud.  The BIA, however, applied an incorrect review standard.  Along that line, it incorrectly interpreted Coelho to provide that all motions to remand must meet the motion-to-reopen standard.  In re: Ramnarine at 2.  Instead, Coelho states a motion to remand must meet the substantive requirements of a motion to reopen “where [it] is really in the nature of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider”.  Coelho, 20 I. & N. at 471.  Conversely, “[w]here a motion to remand simply articulates the remedy requested by an appeal, [the BIA] treat[s] it as part  of the appeal and do[es] not  require it to  conform to the  standards for considerations of motions”