In determining whether good cause exists to grant a change of venue, an IJ considers such factors as, among others, administrative convenience, expeditious treatment of the case, the location of the witnesses, and the costs of transporting witnesses or evidence to a new location. See Matter of Rahman, 20 I. &N. Dec. 480, 483 (B.I.A. 1992).

Matter of Velasquez, 19 I. &N. Dec. 377, 382-83 (BIA 1986); see also Matter of Rahman, 20 I. &N. Dec. 480, 483 (BIA 1992) (enumerating the same factors).

However, this authority exists only to the extent that it is encompassed by our appellate jurisdiction." Matter of Hernandez-Puente , 20 I. & N. Dec. 335, 339 (BIA 1991) ; see Matter of Rahman , 20 I. & N. Dec. 480, 484 n.4 (BIA 1992) (concerns regarding place of detention are outside IJ and BIA authority). III.

"In determining whether good cause to change venue exists, an immigration judge should consider all relevant factors including administrative convenience, expeditious treatment of the case, location of witnesses, and cost of transporting witnesses or evidence to a new location." See Matter of Rahman, 20 I. & N. Dec. 480, 483 (BIA 1992). In this case, the IJ determined that Gafurova failed to show "good cause" for a change of venue.

Good cause is determined by balancing certain relevant factors, including administrative convenience, expeditious treatment of the case, location of witnesses, and the cost of transporting witnesses or evidence to a new location. Matter of Rahman, 20 I. & N. Dec. 480, 482-83 (BIA 1992) (citations omitted). Zampaligidi-Jebreel has failed to show that any of the IJ's purported procedural errors deprived him of the right to a fair and impartial hearing.

In considering a motion to change venue, IJs determine whether good cause exists by “balancing the factors ... relevant to the venue issue,” including “administrative convenience, expeditious treatment of the case, location of witnesses, and cost of transporting witnesses or evidence to a new location.” Matter of Rahman, 20 I. & N. Dec. 480, 482 (BIA 1992) (citation omitted). But that is not the end of our inquiry, for Velasquez sets forth three types of “egregious circumstances” that, if present, justify relieving an alien of his attorney's admissions, even when those admissions meet the previously-discussed criteria.

Good cause is determined by balancing a number of factors, including administrative convenience, the expeditious treatment of the case, the location of the witnesses, and the costs of transporting witnesses or evidence to a new location. See Matter of Rahman, 20 I N Dec. 480, 482-83 (BIA 1992). The IJ and BIA held that administrative convenience favored keeping the proceeding in Detroit.

"Good cause is determined by balancing the factors . . . relevant to the venue issue." Matter of Rahman, 20 I. N. Dec. 480, 482-83 (BIA 1992). Such factors include administrative convenience, expeditious treatment of the case, location of witnesses, and costs of transporting witnesses or evidence to a new location.

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20(b); In re Rahman, 20 I. N. Dec. 480, 483-84 (BIA 1992). Additionally, the petitioners' argument regarding changed country circumstances is raised before this court for the first time in their reply brief.

The IJ made no mention of the factors he was required to balance under BIA precedent for a change of venue determination, such as administrative convenience, expeditious treatment of the case, location of witnesses, cost of transporting witnesses or evidence to a new location, and prejudice to the INS. See Matter of Rahman, 20 I. N. Dec. 480 (BIA 1992). In 2004, Frech again requested a change in venue, this time through counsel he had obtained in Houston.