Case Information
*1
MATTER OF PEREZ-ANDRADE
In Deportation Proceedings
A-23067026 Decided by Board March 18, 1987
(1) A request for a continuance was properly denied by the immigration judge bocause the respondents did not show good cause for a continuance. (2) A deportation hearing was properly held in absentia where the respondents, withоut reasonable cause, failed to appear for the hearing (3) In the absence of a brief in support of their appeal, a reasonablе explanation for the respondents' failure to appear for the hearing or a demonstration that they were prejudiced in any manner, a summary dismissal оf the appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 3.100(1-a)(v) (1981) is appropriate.
CHARGE:
Order: Act of 1952- Seс. 241(a)(2) [8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)]-Entered without inspection (both respondents)
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
Martin R. Guajardo, Esquire 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1217 San Francisco, California 94111
ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:
Jane Leroe General Attorney
BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Dunne, Morris, Vacca, and Heilman, Board Members
In a decision dated July 3, 1985, an immigration judge found the respondents deportable on the charge set forth above. The decision was rendered at a hearing held in absentia due to the respondents' failure to apрear. The immigration judge denied the respondents' applications for suspension of deportation under section 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1254(а)(1) (1982), because of their failure to appear and prosecute their applications. He granted both respondents voluntary departure. The respondents have appealed. The appeal will be dismissed summarily.
The respondents are a husband and wife, natives and citizens of Mexico. The Orders to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing (Forms I-221) allogo that they entered the United States in June and
*2 August 1974, respectively, without submitting themselves for inspection. At a deportation hearing held on August 6, 1984, the respondents, with the assistance of counsel, admitted the allеgations in the Orders to Show Cause, conceded deportability, and requested an opportunity to file applications for suspension of deportation. The immigration judge granted a continuance and scheduled a hearing on their аpplications for July 3, 1985, at 2:30 p.m. Counsel waived further notice.
On July 3, 1985, counsel apрeared for the hearing, but the respondents did not. Counsel had no explanation why they were not present but requested a continuance. The immigration judge prоceeded with the hearing in absentia.
On appeal, the respondents cоntend that the immigration judge abused his discretion in denying counsel's request for a continuance made when the respondents failed to appear for their heаring. The respondents have not explained this contention or submitted a brief in supрort of the appeal.
The regulations provide that a continuancе may be granted in the immigration judge's discretion if good cause is shown. 8 C.F.R. § 242.13 (1987). A decision to deny a continuance will not be overturned on appeal unless it appеars that the respondents were deprived of a full and fair hearing. Matter of Nаrnio, 14 I&;N Dec. 412 (BIA 1973); see also Matter of Leyva, 16 I&;N Dec. 118 (BIA 1977); cf. Matter of Sibrun, 18 I&;N Dec. 354 (BIA 1983). Further, the respondents are not entitled to relief as a result of а procedural error unless they can establish that they were prejudiced by thе error. Matter of Santos, 19 I&;N Dec. 105 (BIA 1984).
The respondents have made no effort to demonstrate that they had good cause for a continuance, that they were deprived of a full and fair hearing by the denial of a continuance, or that they wеre prejudiced in any manner. In fact, they have not explained their contеntion or submitted a brief in support of their appeal. They have as yet offered no explanation whatsoever for their failure to appear for the hearing. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the hearing was properly held in absentia, section 242(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (1982); Matter of Patel, 19 I&;N Dec. 260 (BIA 1985); Matter of Marallag, 13 I&;N Dec. 775 (BIA 1971), and thаt the appeal is frivolous or was filed solely for the purpose of delay. Accordingly, it will be dismissed summarily pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a)(iv) (1987). Voluntary departure will not be reinstated. Matter of Patel, 19 I&;N Dec. 394 (BIA 1986).
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.