|Remember , remember
always that all of us ... are
-=Franklin D. Roosevelt
before the Daughters of the
endowed by their Creator
rights, that among these
with certain inalianable are
rights, that among these
pursuit of happiness.
are life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.
-=The Declaration of
Independence of the
It has pleased Almighty God
... He has largely
augmented our free
population by emancipation
and by immigration, while
he has opened to us new
sources of wealth, and has
crowned the labor of our
working-men in every
department of industry with
One more Quote for those
How many goodly creatures
are there here!
How beauteous mankind is!
O brave new world,
That has such people in't!
"ENGLISH IS SPOKEN
HERE" AT WANGLAW USA
Beginning 2012, WANGLAW will provide a concise summary of select immigration decisions from the Sixth Circuit:
Page 2 of 2
Case: Ramani Pilla v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. Recommended for Publication No. 10-4178. Holding: USDC affiirmed. Date: February 6, 2012. Country: India.
Reason: This is a published decision pertaining to the unusual relief of coram nobis. This case is not to be confused with companion case No. 09-4577, which
dismissed the appeal from the BIA. The underlying facts are identical. Pilla had pled guilty to lying to the FBI in violation of 8 USC §1001 and served six months
incarceration and was ordered to pay restitution of $66,000.00 for costs of the investigation. She had the advice of two attorneys, one of whom was an immigration
attorney who gave her an incorrect opinion that pleading guilty will not lead to her removal from the USA. While incarcerated she had filed for habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. §2255 challenging her sentence but not her plea or conviction, which was denied by the U S District Court for Northern Ohio. She filed a second §2255
which was denied because she could not satisfy the second-or-successive requirement of §2255(h) (new evidence or a new constitutional decision). After completing
her sentence, she filed for a Writ of coram nobis arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. After discovery and an extension of time to file briefs, the district court denied
the writ. The 6th reviewed de novo under the "clearly erroneous" standard. Blanton v.U.S., 94 F. 3d. 227 (6th Circ. 1996). Coram nobis is an extraordinary writ
used to "vacate a federal sentence or conviction when a §2255 is not available," that is when the petitioner is no longer in custody. Coram nobis is granted only when
there is a factual error that was unknown at the time of trial and that is "of a fundamental unjust character which probably would have altered the outcome of the
challenged proceeding if it has been know." U.S. v. Johnson, 237 F. 3d 751 (6th Cir. 2001). The 6th reviewed her request for coram nobis not as a successive
§2255, reached the merits, but found that she "faced overwhelming evidence of her guilt," and agreed with the district court that she "had no realistic chance of being
acquitted at trial," and "had no rational defense, would have been convicted and would have faced a longer term of incarceration." Digest courtesy of C. K. Wang
Case: Ramani Sri Pilla v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. Unpublished No. 09-4577. Date: February 2, 2012. Holding: BIA decision affirmed. Country: India.
Reason: The IJ and BIA held that Pilla was removable as an LPR who has committed an "aggravated felony" per 8 USC §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). She had pled guilty to
lying to the FBI in violation of 8 USC §1001 and was sentenced to six months incarceration and restitution of $66,000.00 for costs of the investgation. While an
assistant professor at Case Western Reserve University, she reported to the University and FBI of receiving hate mail in her office which she later admitted she had
written and planted herself. The 6th dismissed the case because her guilty plea was for fraud or deceit involving over $10,000.00. Without a written plea agreement
specifying losses, the restitution to the victims of the fraud which included both the university and the FBI is taken to be the amount defrauded. Her claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel was also dismissed because it had not been raised before the BIA. Digest courtesy of C. K. Wang.
Case: Jermia Chaidy v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. Unpublished No. 11-3177 Date: February 2, 2012. Holding: BIA decision affirmed. Country: Indonesia
Reason: Jermia Chaidy aka Jermia Chiew came to the USA with his mother after obtaining a visitor visa in Singapore. His mother returned to Indonesia while he
remained with an aunt and went to college in Newton MA. After two years he went to NY City where he lost his passport. He moved in with a girlfriend and
obtained a new passport. He married his girlfriend who filed an I130. He was served with NTA and had a hearing where he and his parents testified. The IJ found
him removable and denied the adjustment of status. BIA affirmed. The 6th dismissed the appeal citing a series of inconsistent testimony concerning lawful admission
(please read case for all the many details that form the inconsistencies). Patel v. Gonzales, 432 F. 3d 685 (6th Cir. 2005); Ghazali v. Holder. 585 F.3d 289 (6th Cir.
2009); Matovski v. Gonzales, 492 F. 3d 722 (6th Cir. 2007). Digest courtesy of C. K. Wang.
Case: Laureta Sokoli v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. Unpublished No. 10-4046. Date: February 1, 2012. Holding: BIA decision affirmed. Country: Albania
Reason: Sokoli testified that she was kidnapped by 3 masked men who attempted to rape her. When the police arrived, they arrested and then released the men.
She claimed to be a victim of attempted human trafficking because of her father's political activity with the Albanian Democratic Party. She fled to USA using a false
passport under the name Anita Kolombi. IJ found her not credible because of the "absolute vagueness" of her testimony. BIA affirmed. She filed an untimely motion
to reopen based on her marriage in the US to an asylee which the BIA denied. The husband had filed an I-130 which was approved while the matter was pending in
the 6th. The 6th dismissed the appeal, including a remand to adjust her approved I130 because of a lack of statutory authority, Peci v. Holder, 379 F. Appx. 499
(6th Cir. 2010); Fang Huang v. Mukasey, 523 F. 3d 640 (6th Cir. 2008), and because she had entered with a false passport. Digest courtsey of C. K. Wang.
Case: Jean Wyclif Ndayisaba v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. Unpublished No. 10-4477 Date: January 31, 2012. Holding: BIA Affirmed. Country: Rwanda
Reason: Ndayisaba, a Hutu and Seventh Day Adventist, filed for asylum, withholding under INA and CAT. He had testified before the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwamda (ICTR) on behalf of Elizpahan Ntakirutimana. At merits hearing, Ndayisba offered his testimony and that of former US Attorney General Ramsey
Clark who served as counsel for Ntakirutimana. IJ denied relief because of failure to establish eligibility. There was no nexus between being witness and any
persecution. BIA affirmed. The 6th Circuit dismissed the appeal with the suggestion that he file a motion to reopen. Japarkulova v. Holder, 615 F.3d 696, 702 (6th
Cir. 2010). Digest Courtesy of C. K. Wang.
Case: Adnan Bushati et al v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. Unpublished No. 10-3414. Date: January 31, 2012. Holding: BIA affirmed. Country: Albania
Reason: Bushati and his wife Valbona and children Eugent and Erisa filed for asylum, withholding under INA and CAT. Persecution was because of membership in
Albanian Democratic Party. IJ found the asylum claim untimely and not credible for the withholding under INA and CAT. The BIA affirmed. On 9/17/2009 they
filed a motion to reopen with the BIA based on changed country conditions in Albania which was denied. 6th Circuit dismissed, citing to the fact that, inter alia,
Bushati failed to address IJ's initial adverse credibility finding. Sako v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 857, 866 (6th Cir. 2006). Digest Courtesy of C. K. Wang.
Case: Juana Hernandez v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. Unpublished No. 10-3662. Date: January 25, 2012. Holding: BIA affirmed. Country: El Salvador:
Reason: Herrnandez has been in the USA since entering on 1/11/2001 on a visitor visa. 17 days before expiration of the initial TPS, she sent an application. In
December, her TPS application was returned because of a missing signature and missing fee. INS received the corrected application and fee on 12/30/2002. On
3/24/2003 INS issued a NOID for failing to qualify for late registration. On 8/9/2004 she filed another TPS which got another NOID on 10/4/2004 which she
appealed. The AAO dismissed the appeal on 1/26/2006. Removal proceeding began on 4/13/2006. IJ held she failed to timely file by the 9/9/2002 deadline. She
appealed to the BIA now claiming her agency advisor sent the TPS to the wrong address. The BIA dismissed the appeal. She appeals into the 6th arguing, inter alia,
"equitable tolling" and "ineffective assistance." Appeal dismissed by the 6th Circuit. Digest courtesy of C. K. Wang.
Case: Sasa Prelevic v. Eric H. Holder, Jr, Unpublished No. 10-3887. TextVersion Date: January 18, 2012. Holding: BIA affirmed Country: Montenegro.
Reason: Prelevic is a native of Yugoslavia (citizen of Montenegro) who first arrived in 1994, was denied asylum, and was deported. In 1997 he returned illegally. In
2005 proceedings were began to remove him again. In 2006 he filed for withholding and relief under CAT. adding asylum in 2007. The IJ denied all relief by reason
of timeliness and credibility. His appeal included a claim of bias and denial of due process. The BIA affirmed with a separate opinion. The 6th Circuit affirmed after
reviewing legal conclusions of the BIA de novo. Khozhaynova v. Holder, 641 F. 3d 1044, 1047 (6th Cir. 2007). This is a post REAL ID Act case. There was no
violation of due process rights. Ndrecaj v. Mukasey, 522 F. 3d 667, 673 (6th Cir. 2008). Digest courtesy of C. K. Wang.
Case: Gojko Jungic v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. Unpublished No. 10-3056. TextVersion Date: January 10, 2012. Holding: BIA affirmed. Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina
Reason: Jungic served as a military ambulance driver during the Bosnian War from June 1992 until the Dayton Peace Accords (December 1995). Starting in 1998
and for 6 years he received threatening phone calls and notes, some in Arabic, but was never physically harmed. He arrived in the USA in 2004 and filed for asylum in
2006. The IJ denied all relief and BIA affirmed. The 6th Circuit affirmed. REAL ID Act of 2005 limits judicial review of the denial of an application for asylum as
untimely. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). As to the non-discretionary relief of withholding and CAT, the Court held that he had waived CAT. Shkabari v. Gonzales, 427 F.
3d 324, 327 n.1 (6th Cir. 2005). Respecting withholding he failed to show a ‘clear probability’ of persecution.” Dugboe v Holder, 644 F.3d at 472 (citing Liti v.
Gonzales, 411 F.3d 631, 640–41 (6th Cir. 2005)); see also Pablo-Sanchez v. Holder, 600 F.3d 592, 594 (6th Cir. 2010). Digest courtesy of C. K. Wang.
Case: Javier Adolfo Cifuentes v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Unpublished No. 10-3915 Text Version Date: January 9, 2012. Holding: BIA affirmed. Country Guatemala.
Reason: IJ denied asylum, withholding, and relief under the "special rule" cancellation of removal under Section 203 of the Nicaraguan & Central American Relief Act
of 1997 (NACARA) to Cifuentes and his children Johnny and Sara Macario. IJ granted cancellation of removal under Section 240A(b) to Cifuentes and his wife
Blanca Zarate but not to their children. BIA dismissed the appeal of the IJ denial. 6th Circuit affirmed because substantial evidence showed Cifuentes did not suffer
persecution or torture in Guatemala and that he will not suffer harm if removed. Citing Stserba v. Holder, 646 F.3d 964, 971 (6th Cir. 2011) (questions of law
reviewed de novo - this case also resulted in a remand to reconsider mistreatment of ethnic Russians by Estonia which includes revocation of citizenship and loss of
work as medical doctor); Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009) (substantial evidence standard for factual findings which compels a reasonable
adjudicator to conclude to the contrary); Rreshpja v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 551, 557 (6th Cir 2005) (higher burden of proof for withholding). Respecting the "special
rule," the Court found that his testimony and that of a witness that he filled out some papers at a notary office in 1990 was not credible towards showing that he had
actually registered for benefits under American Baptist Churches v.Thornburgh, 706 G.Supp. 796 (N.D.Cal.1991) (ABC settlement). Digest courtesy of C. K. Wang.
Case: Shan Dong Lin v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. Unpublished No.11-3262. TextVersion Date: 1/4/2012. Holding: BIA decision vacated & remanded.+ Country: China.
Reason: In January 2009, Lin visited New York City for the Chinese New Year and while there joined the China Democracy Party (CDP). IJ granted asylum because of
a "reasonable possibility" of future persecution for activity with the CDP. BIA reversed, issuing separate opinion and citing Matter of A– M–, 23 I & N Dec. 737, 740
(BIA 2005) which applied the "clear probability" standard. Remanded to BIA for reconsideration because asylum required a lesser standard, that of "reasonable
possibility" which is the burden for showing "a well founded fear of persecution." Bi Xia Qu v. Holder, 618 F.3d 602, 605 (6th Cir. 2010) (remand to BIA to consider
whether forced marriage and involuntary servitude constitute membership in a particular social group). Digest courtesy of C. K. Wang.
WANGLAW is available to represent clients before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
and the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Please click for more information on [ ] Appeals [ ] Asylum
Caveat /Disclaimer: U.S. immigration statutes, regulations and interpretations of these and other federal, state and local law are subject to change and timely,
competent counsel from a qualified legal professional on current and applicable law to particular facts is indispensable. This website provides information of a general
nature and such information cannot pertain to any specific set of facts. For any particular situation, the visitor should obtain counsel from a qualified legal professional.
The publisher reserves the right to amend the contents of this website at any time and for any reason.
Charleston C. K. Wang, Esq.
Immigration and Nationality Lawyers in Cincinnati Ohio USA serving the World
Charleston Wang Immigration Lawyer Cincinnati Ohio Charleston Wang Immigration Attorney Cincinnati Ohio
The Wanglaw Building
6924 Plainfield Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45236
United States of America
Phones: 513/793-7776 and 513/891-2888
Copyright 2007-2012 All Rights Reserved to Charleston C. K. Wang, Publisher
WANGLAW is a registered tradename
|Charleston Wang Immigration Attorney Cincinnati Ohio USA Charleston Wang Immigration Lawyer Cincinnati Ohio USA Charleston Wang Immigration Law Nationality Law Cincinnati Ohio USA
Charleston Cheng-Kung Wang, Attorney-At-Law
DIGEST OF IMMIGRATION DECISIONS OF THE
U. S. SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
digest comment commentary law review discussion analysis synopsis summary casenote headnote note nutshell report lawnote heading revisit sixth circuit immigration decision condensation
distillation united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit summarize discuss analyze