0 284 intentiona use of voent rce at is capable of causing pysica pain or injury to another person). The language o K.S.A. 1-3414(a)(2)() denes he oense o aggravated batery as eckessy casng ea bodiy h to another person or dsgement of other person (.J. at 6). Bodiy h has been dened as any touching of the victm aganst he victim's will with physica rce in an intentional ostile and aggavated m er.
State v. Dbish
675 d 877, 715 (984) The word "eat distinguishes the body hm necessary om slight, rivial, mno o oderate ha, and as such it does no incude mere bruises whch are liely to be sstained in simpe bate.
Fher the ter disguement is a ctua circumstance that proves "great bodiy h
ae v. Uleas
95 P3d 1020, 1035-36 (013) ecause e staute under which e respondent was convicted requires he use of volent rce that s capabe of casing physical pan or injry to anohe we a he Imation Judges deteination at a vioaton of KSA 21-3414(a)(2)(A) is a crme of volence uder 8 U.S.. § 16(a). Similarly we agree wth te mmgration Judge that a violation of .S.A 2 344(a)(2)(A) is aso a crime o vioence nde 18 U.SC § 16 ) whic incles y oher oense that s a ony d at by its naure, nvoves a sbsantia is that pysica rce against the person or propery of anoter may be used in the cose o commiig the oense (.J. at ). The sbstantial risk efeed to in § 16(b) "relates not to he gener condct or to e possibilty that h wl resut om a person's conduct, but to the rs hat the se of physical rce against another might be required in commiting a crime.
Leca v Asc
0 (00). As noted above an oense nde KS.A. 34(a)(2)(A) which s a ony under Kansas and dera law reques he intent o use volent physical rce against the victim (J at 6-7 Therere the respondent's convicon r aggravated baery der K.S.A. 2-344(a)()(A) is a categorca crime of violence under 8 US.C § 16() d e is removabe as carged. We dsagree with the respondent's contention that the Immigration Judge should have anted him a contnuce because he ed a moton to wtdaw s plea with the criminal cour whic is pending (J. a 4 7 Exh. 5 Tr. at 47)
Immigration Judge may grant a continuance good cause shown. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.29 1240 A decision o deny a moton r contnance wi no e revesed uness the alen estabshes that he denial cased hm acua prejudice and h and materay aected the outcome o his case
Mae f llaealZniga
Dec. 88 (B 006);
Dec. 35 356-57 (BIA 1983);
Mae f Peez-Andade
9 I&N Dec. 433 (BIA 987). Even if e respondent is seekng post-convction reief this Board has held that he avaiability of post-convction motions do no serve to negate he naity of e ciina convicion or the charge o emovabliy uness and unt te conviction has been overed pursuant to sch a moton (Tr. at 49, 53).
See Mate f Onyid
Dec. 55 555 (BI 1999);
Mate f Madigal-Calv
Dec. 323 (BIA 99) Moreove e ot go behnd the udcal recd to deterine the gul or iocence o an alien
See NS v LpezMendza
8 U.S 03 1039 (198) ( mmgraton dge canno addcae gu
Matte f -
Dec. 90 904 (IA 997);
Theee, he Igration Judge appopriaey und tha the resondent did not demonstrate good cause to waant a continuance (J. at 7-8). The respondent also arges hat he, an alege religios preache ars reng to Ta (Tr. at 58) The Immigraton udge nd however tha he espondent does no qual r
Cite as: Ravi Satulo Laicer, A096 675 284 (BIA Jan. 15, 2014)