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.
< 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