Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Sangchul Lee, A200 298 115 (BIA July 5, 2013)

Sangchul Lee, A200 298 115 (BIA July 5, 2013)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 49 |Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded for further proceedings because the immigration judge mistakenly believed the respondent was convicted of "assault with a dangerous weapon," when the statute of conviction, Mich. Comp. Laws 750.81a, criminalizes assault without a weapon. The decision was written by Member Paricia Cole.
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded for further proceedings because the immigration judge mistakenly believed the respondent was convicted of "assault with a dangerous weapon," when the statute of conviction, Mich. Comp. Laws 750.81a, criminalizes assault without a weapon. The decision was written by Member Paricia Cole.

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on Jul 15, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/12/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Birach Robet M., EsqChaoos Giovan
&
Birach LLP645Griswold Suite 1800Detroit Ml 48226Name:LEESANGCHUL
U
Department
 
Executive Oce r Immgraton Revew
B g AppsOc   Ck
5107 Lebu Pk, Suit 2000Falls Chrch Vrgn 2204/
OHS/ICE ice of Chief Counsel
DET333 Mt Elio St Rm 204Detoit M 48207 A 200-298115Date of this notice 7/5/2013
Encosed s a copy of the Board's decsion and order n the above-rerenced case.Encosure
 MbCl, P A
Sncerely,
D

c
a,
Donna Carr Che Cerk
yg k
Cite as: Sangchul Lee, A200 298 115 (BIA July 5, 2013)
 
U
pm  Ju
Executive Oce

Imation ReviewDecision of the Board ofgation AppealsFals Church, Vrgnia
22041
e:200 298 115 Deot MI e SNGCUL LEE
REOVL PROCEEDINGSPELDate:ON BELOF RESPNDE:Robert M Bach EsqueON BEL OF DS:CRGEBa G Burgtossstat Che ose
JUL
-
5 2013
otce Sec237(a)(2)()()&N ct[SC § 1227(a)(2)()()]Covcted o cime vovg moa turptudePPLCON eato o poceedgsTe espodet appeals the Imgato udges Decembe 27 2011 decso dg hmemovabe as chaged he ecod w be emaded to the mmgato udge  he poceedgs cosstet wth ths opo ad  et o a ew decsohe mmgato udge ud the espodet emovable as chaged based hs Octobe 142011 covcto  the oese o aggavated assault  voato o Mchga CompedStatutes secto 708 a whch she ud to be a categocal cme volvg moa tutude( at 45; Exh 2) We d the mmgato udge mstepeted the elevat statute (I at 45) eee we d that the mmgato udge ered  dg the espodet emovabe aschagedbased o the easos cted  he decso ( at 45)
See
8 CFR § 1003(d)(3)()(201)
(de novo
evew)Secto 75081a o the Mchga Comped Statutes povdes  peet part:peso who assauts a dvdua
without
a weapo ad cts seiouso agavated jur upo that dvdua
without
tedg to comtmurde o to ct eat bod u less tha mde MCL § 7508a() (emphass added) s oted b the espodet o appea te Immatoudge eoeos eed to hs covcto as oe  "assault wt a dageous weapo (I at 4) Coa to e Immato udges tepetato the statute speccal states hat theassaiat acted wout a weapo ( at 4)uthe the statute specca states at theassalat acted wthout tet ( at ) s a esult thee s a eastc pobablt the statuteeaches coduct that does ot volve moal urpude ad s ot a categocal crime vovg oa tuptude (I at 4)
See Matter of Silva-Trevino
24 &N Dec 687 (G 2008)
Yeremin v. Holder,
707 Fd 616 (6th C 201)
Cite as: Sangchul Lee, A200 298 115 (BIA July 5, 2013)
 
A200 298 5Under these cicmstances the modied categorical approach is empoyed to deteinewhethe the respondent's oense is one that involves moal turpitde.
See d
HeeImmigation Judge's discussion of the modied categorica approach is soewhat ncea (IJ at56At one point, the migation dge sates that he documents in the recod estabishnder the modied categorca approach an aggravated ony bt not a crie invovng moratupitde  at 5 Foowing hat statement the migration Judge nds he poce repoestabishes the oense
a cime invoving moa tupitde (I at 6 Given the ack of clityin his poion of he Imigration dges decson and or liited c-nding aiity on appealwe nd a emand is waanted Accodingy the ecord wl be remanded to the migation Jdge r her poceedingsconsistent wi tis opinion and  entry of a new decson
ORDER:
The recod is emanded to the mmiation Judge r her proceedingsconsistent wth this opinion and r entry o a new decision.
F,
2
Cite as: Sangchul Lee, A200 298 115 (BIA July 5, 2013)

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->