,

FABIENNE CHATAIN, ESQUIRE
Lichtman & Elliot, P.C.
1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20009
Name: SIDHU, VIKRAMJEET
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofice fr Immigation Review
8oo·1ofIooìg·ut/ooappeats
¿ìceofthec|e·/
5/0i Leesbur Pike, S14ile 2000
Fals (1url. Virgi1ia 22041
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel - WAS
901 Norh Stuart St., Suite 1307
Arlington, VA 22203
A044-238-062
Date of this notice: 11/30/2011
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in te above-referenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Adkins-Blanch, Charles K.
Guendelsberger, John
Hoffman, Sharon
Sincerely,
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Vikramjeet Sidhu, A044 238 062 (BIA Nov. 30, 2011)
U.S. Depaent of Jutice
Exv Ofc f Imgo R
Do o te B o Imgo Ap
Fals C V2041
File: A044 238 062 - Arlngton, VA
I re: VET SIHU
I RMOVA PROCEEDIGS
APPEA
Date:
ON BE OF RESPONDENT: Fabiene Chatain, Es
APPLICATION: Rgand rensdeaion
hOV $1ì"\l
The resondet, a native and citen of I h appeed fom a Immigion Judge's deision
date June 9, 2011, d t applcnt's moton to reonside his deision deng his moton t
repen proce. The qwb sustane and the proceins teted.
The Boad reviews a Imgtion Judge's f of f including 6pa t t m®
of testimony, unde a cel eroneus standard. Se 8 C.F.R § 1003. l(d}(3)(i); Mater oJ R-H-,
23 I&N De. 629, 637 (IA 203); Mater oJS-H-, 23 I&N D. 462 (IA 2002). The Board
reiews queons of law, discreion, and judgment, ad alothe issues raised in an Im tion
Judge's deision de nvo. Se 8 C.F.R. § 1003. l(d)(3)(ii).
T record reets t a Imigaton Judge ete an orde of reova a the rspndet
on May 13, 2004. Reoval w base on the charge that the responde was sbject to deprion
under seon 237(a}(2)(A)(iii) ofthelmmigion and Nationity A, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)2)(A)(iii),
as an ale who h be convicte of an aggavae feony the of fr which a term of
imprisone of at least 1 yea was imosed. See seion 10l(a}(43}(G) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 110l(a)43)(G). The remova cge in t w baed upon the ronde's May 2, 203,
conviction fr embzleent unde setion 18.2-111 of the Vta Coe, fr whch the rponde
w st t a term of inme of3 yers. A relae in his brief on appe, the respondent
w physicaly remove fm the United States in June 2004, but sbseuetly reed to this
cunt unde a g of hrparole (rie a 2). On May 20, 2011, th resne fe a
motion with the Immigation Judge to sua sponte repe proe based on a a that his
convicton unde VA Cr Code § 18.2-111 does not qu a a agava felony the
of.
A an it matte, we fd that the Boad has jucton ove this matter eve though th
rsponde's appeal bre reect t bs gt of hmaa parle is shorly to epire, a that
he may no lon b physically presen in the Unite States when ths desion isses. See Willias
v. Gls, 499 F.3d 329 (411Cir. 2007) (invaldating 8 C.F.R 1003.2(d}, the relaton tg
a aien's reova f the Unte Stes afer f a moton to rpe as withdrawal of the moton);
Mattr oJ 4mt,MI D. 6 (IA 208) (ackowlegng t t Boad wlapply t
holding in Willias v. Golsto caes aising in the Fourth Circi).
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Vikramjeet Sidhu, A044 238 062 (BIA Nov. 30, 2011)
• ^ R
4
A04 238 062
O de novo re, w f that the rspondet h corely aed that his convicton fr
embeuleet is distshable fom a t ofense beuse the verion of th ste under which
be was c and convcte does not dene th crime of embezet t reuir a tpassor or
non-cnal takng (rief a 7-10). See Comoealth v. Brh, 510 S.E.2d 866, 868-869
(2002) (prof of ebezemet under 1994-2003 version of Va Code § 18.2-111, which delee
le alowig a det to b ''inicte as fr laceny," w if cet to ssa charge ude
the comon law deton of lacny be embezlemet res no tspassortang). As
evidence tht th respndent's ofese incude the elee of a non-conss t of prope,
the respondent's cme does not q as an agavated flony the ofne.1 Se Si v.
Goles, 419F.3d 276, 283 (4th Cir. 2005) (thetaking ofpropewithoutcnset is a keee
of the crime of thef); Mater of Gcia-Mag, 24 I&N De. 436 (BIA 2008) (clgt a
thef ofense within the me of seon 10l(a)(43XG) ct& of the tang ot o eercise of
contol over, property without cnsen). Ba on the freing, we conlude that th Immigaion
Court erin ssg the reova chae in t c. We f tht th rspndent h prened
exceponal circmces wartng s sponte repeing, and that the Immgon Judge sould
not have deie the respondent's mtion to repe pes, or sbly rs to
reconsider tht decsion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b);Materoj J-J-, 21 I&NDe. 976 (BIA 197).
Accoringly, the pre s wlb rpened.
Insmuch as the aggavate feony gound of reoval is the sole charge in ths matte, there now
exsts no b to conte the rpee proceegs. Accory, the pre wl b
terminated.
ORE: The appeal i ss.
FT ORE: The Immigion Judge's deision is vacated a the proceedings ae
repe.
FT ORER: The pre gs a tete.
1 A i Come v. Brh, sa, the reord does not ree th the responde w indicte
fr or prove to h emz e fus that wer owne by o beonge to the pe or entt tat
ents h with the fnds. Thefre, a non-consnsual t of property i not shown.
2
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Vikramjeet Sidhu, A044 238 062 (BIA Nov. 30, 2011)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMIGRTION REVIEW
IMIGRTION COURT
901 NORTH STUAT ST., STE.1300
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
LICHTM & ELLIOT, P.C.
CHATAIN, ESQ., FABIENE
1666 CONECTICUT AVE, N, STH FLOOR
WASHINGTON, DC 20009
_
Date: Jun 14, 2011
File A044-238-062
In the Matter of:
SIDHU, VIKRAMJEET
Attached is a copy of the written decision of the Immigration Judge.
This decision is final unless an appeal is taken to the Board of
Immigration Appeals. The enclosed copies of FORM EOIR 26,
?lot ice of Appeal, and FORM EOIR 27, Notice of Entry as Attorney or
Representative, properly executed, must be filed with the Board of
Immigration Appeals on or before ��
The appeal must be accompanied by proof of paid fee ($110.00).
Enclosed is a copy of the oral decision.
Enclosed is a transcript of the testimony of record.
You are granted until to submit a brief
to this office in support of your appeal.
Opposing counsel is granted until ��
brief in opposition to the appeal.
to submit a
Enclosed is a copy of the order/decision of the Immigration Judge.
All papers filed with the Court shall be accompanied by proof
of service upon·opposing counsel.
U
cc: JAVIER E. BASQUIDE, ESQ.
901 N. STUAT ST., SUITE 708
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMMIGR TJON COURT
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
In the Matter of: Vikramjeet SIDHU A Number: A044 238 062
ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JDGE
Upon consideration of the Respondent's Motion to Reconsider Denial of Respondent's
�Reopen, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the motion be GRANTED
�ecause:
[ ] DHS does not oppose the motion.
[ ] The respondent does not oppose the motion.
[ ] A response to the motion has not been filed with the court.
[ ] Good cause h been established for the motion.
[ ] The court agrees with the reasons stated in the opposition to the motion.
[ ] e motion is unti� ��r .
4 ��
Other:

�R��W· ,

r./
| ^��1 ' �3 sf
� r � �

� ¡�,� 1 � )/¤/ó24V´`
Deadlines:
Date The Honorable
Immigration Judge
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful