| AGGRAVATED VEHICULAR HOMICIDE IS NOT CRIME OF VIOLENCE AND IS NOT DEPORTABLE OFFENSE. On December 27, 2005, the United States Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the decision of the Immigration Judge in the case of IN RE: KOEUN YOU, A27-819-377. The BIA agreed with the position taken on behalf of Mr. Kouen You that convictions for aggravated vehicular homicide and vehicular assault under Ohio state law which requires a mens rea (mental state) of recklessness do not constitute crimes of violence as defined under 18 U.S. C. Section 16. The BIA dismissed the government's appeal which was based on the argument that aggravated vehicular homicide was a crime of violence. Accordingly, any permanent resident convicted under a recklessness standard (such as DUI violations) is not subject to removal or deportation from the United States. Previously on August 22, 2005, in the Matter of Koeun You, File No. A 027-819-377, an U.S. Immigration Judge of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, United States Department of Justice ruled that conviction for aggravated vehicular homicide by reason of driving while intoxicated and while attempting to use a cell phone, under Ohio Revised Code §2903.06(A) and §2903.08(a)(2) are not deportable offenses and are not crimes of violence under U.S. Immigration law. Mr. Koeun You, a permanent resident of the United States in Hamilton County. Mr. Kouen You was represented by Charleston C. K. Wang before the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Immigration Court. Click below see the Decision by the United States Board of Immigration Appeals and by the Immigration Judge. Page 1 of Immigration Court Page 2 of Immigration Court Page 3 of Immigration Court Page 4 of Immigration Court Page 1 of Board of Immigration Appeals Page 2 of Board of Immigration Appeals Page 3 of Board of Immigration Appeals Page 4 of Board of Immigration Appeals A NOTE ON BIA DECISIONS: A precedent decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals applies to all immigration proceedings in the United States involving the same issue unless it is modified or overruled by the Attorney General, the Board, Congress, or a Federal Court. See, In re E-L-H et al. |
| A CASE CONCERNING THE EMPLOYMENT OF A CHINESE CHEF 01/20/2006 An Ohio corporation, Kwan Ping, Inc. dba King Wok Chinese Restaurant petitioned to employ a specialty Chinese Chef permanently in the United States. The ETA 750 was duly approved by the U. S. Department of Labor. The Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service refused to approve the green card citing that the Petitioner had not established that it had the continuing ability to pay the employee beneficiary the proffered wage. Charleston C. K. Wang, Esq. appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office in Washington D.C. and filed a legal argument and supplemented with additional evidence. Counsel argued that the INS Director had erred and requested the reversal of the denial. On consideration of the evidence and legal brief, the Administrative Appeals Office agreed with the Petitioner and reversed the INS Director, holding that: “After a review of the federal tax returns, it is concluded that the petitioner has established that it had the ability to pay the proffered wages as of the priority date of the petition and continuing until the beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U. S.C. §1361. The petitioner has met that burden. ORDER: The appeal is sustained. The petition is granted.” Click here for a complete copy of the Decision of Robert O. Wiemann, Director of the Administrative Appeals Office of the U S Citizenship and Immigration Services, U S Department of Homeland Security. |
A NOTEWORTHY DECISION ON COERCIVE
POPULATION CONTROL - FORCED ABORTION AND
STERLIZATION FROM THE U. S. SIXTH CIRCUIT.
In the case of Huang v. Ashcroft, No. 03-3435 (6th Cir.
11/04/2004), the United States Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the Board of Immigration Appeals
and the Immigration Court in the coercive family
planning/forced abortion claim of Huang Guang Hua.
Huang had sought asylum under the special
provision of immigration law that protects victims of
forced abortions or sterilizations in China. Under this
provision, the BIA has determined that the spouse of
someone who has been forced to undergo an
abortion or sterilization qualifies as having suffered
past persecution on account of political opinion.
During the individual hearing before an Immigration
Judge, Huang testified that his wife had suffered from
both a forced abortion and sterilization. He claimed
Chinese officials forced his wife to undergo an
abortion in 1989. He also claimed that after his
second child was born in 1993, she was forcibly
sterilized. Under §1101(a)(42), either of these events
would be grounds for establishing past persecution.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Huang asylum
protection citing inconsistencies in Huang’s
testimony. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
upheld the denial. Huang appealed to the United
States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On 11/04/2004, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit held that:
"[T]inconsistencies noted by the Immigration Judge
may cast doubt as to Huang's relationship to the
child, but not as to whether the sterilization occurred.
As to the abortion, these inconsistencies in no way
suggest that it did not occur. To the contrary, Huang
gave detailed testimony about the events leading to
and following his wife's abortion, none of which is
internally inconsistent or inconsistent with other
aspects of his depiction of events."
The Sixth Circuit concluded:
“We therefore cannot say that the inconsistencies
relied on by the IJ go to the heart of Huang's claim.
Because we believe that any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude that Huang was
credible in describing his wife's forced sterilization
and abortion, we now REVERSE the IJ and BIA's
adverse credibility determination. We accordingly
remand this case to the BIA for further consideration.”
During the individual hearing, Huang Guang Hua was
represented by Charleston C. K. Wang, Esq. and
Mary Joan Reutter, Esq. The favorable decision of the
United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was
based on the strong evidentiary record established by
trial counsel before the Immigration Judge in 2000.
POPULATION CONTROL - FORCED ABORTION AND
STERLIZATION FROM THE U. S. SIXTH CIRCUIT.
In the case of Huang v. Ashcroft, No. 03-3435 (6th Cir.
11/04/2004), the United States Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the Board of Immigration Appeals
and the Immigration Court in the coercive family
planning/forced abortion claim of Huang Guang Hua.
Huang had sought asylum under the special
provision of immigration law that protects victims of
forced abortions or sterilizations in China. Under this
provision, the BIA has determined that the spouse of
someone who has been forced to undergo an
abortion or sterilization qualifies as having suffered
past persecution on account of political opinion.
During the individual hearing before an Immigration
Judge, Huang testified that his wife had suffered from
both a forced abortion and sterilization. He claimed
Chinese officials forced his wife to undergo an
abortion in 1989. He also claimed that after his
second child was born in 1993, she was forcibly
sterilized. Under §1101(a)(42), either of these events
would be grounds for establishing past persecution.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Huang asylum
protection citing inconsistencies in Huang’s
testimony. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
upheld the denial. Huang appealed to the United
States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On 11/04/2004, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit held that:
"[T]inconsistencies noted by the Immigration Judge
may cast doubt as to Huang's relationship to the
child, but not as to whether the sterilization occurred.
As to the abortion, these inconsistencies in no way
suggest that it did not occur. To the contrary, Huang
gave detailed testimony about the events leading to
and following his wife's abortion, none of which is
internally inconsistent or inconsistent with other
aspects of his depiction of events."
The Sixth Circuit concluded:
“We therefore cannot say that the inconsistencies
relied on by the IJ go to the heart of Huang's claim.
Because we believe that any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude that Huang was
credible in describing his wife's forced sterilization
and abortion, we now REVERSE the IJ and BIA's
adverse credibility determination. We accordingly
remand this case to the BIA for further consideration.”
During the individual hearing, Huang Guang Hua was
represented by Charleston C. K. Wang, Esq. and
Mary Joan Reutter, Esq. The favorable decision of the
United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was
based on the strong evidentiary record established by
trial counsel before the Immigration Judge in 2000.
| < Photo on left shows the lobby of Wanglaw Bulding, Silverton, Ohio, USA. |
| WANGLAW Charleston C. K. Wang, Esq. Of Counsel: Mary Joan Reutter, Esq. The Wanglaw Building 6924 Plainfield Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45236 United States of America Phone: 513/793-7776 Fax: 513/793-7779 Copyright 2006 All Rights Reserved to Charleston C. K. Wang, Publisher |
NEWS NEWS NEWS |
Charleston C. K. Wang Attorneys & Counselors-at-Law
WANGLAW®™
NEWSLETTER
