Abrogating Matter of D-M-C-P-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 644 (BIA 2015) to hold that per the I589 application, § 1003.47(d) clearly stipulates that DHS must provide (1) oral notification, (2) a biometrics notice (i.e., a tangible, written notice), and (3) instructions to applicants. In addition, while DHS failed to provide a biometrics notice in this case, the IJ's Fingerprint Warning satisfied this requirement. The Court concluded that the BIA did not err in affirming the IJ's conclusion that Mejia-Velasquez had abandoned her application after failing to provide DHS with her biometrics in support of her application. Dissenting, Judge Motz found that the IJ's Fingerprint Warning did not satisfy the biometrics notice requirement because it failed to provide a date and time to have one's biometrics collected. Additionally, the IJ failed to allow Mejia-Velasquez to demonstrate that her failure to provide her biometrics resulted from good cause in compliance with § 1003.47.
Date of Decision