|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
Mr. Kouen You was represented by
Charleston C. K. Wang before the
Board of Immigration Appeals and the
Click below see the Decision by the
United States Board of Immigration
Appeals and by the Immigration
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
Page 2 of Board of Immigration
Page 3 of Board of Immigration
Page 4 of Board of Immigration
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
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.
|< Photo on left shows the lobby of
Wanglaw Bulding, Silverton, Ohio,
Charleston C. K. Wang, Esq.
Of Counsel: Mary Joan Reutter, Esq.
The Wanglaw Building
6924 Plainfield Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45236
United States of America
Copyright 2006 All Rights Reserved to Charleston C. K. Wang, Publisher
NEWS NEWS NEWS