WANGLAW Attorneys & Counselors-at-Law 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 Fax: 513/793-7779 email: charlestonwang@wanglaw.net Copyright 2007-2020. All Rights Reserved to Charleston C. K. Wang, Publisher WANGLAW is a registered tradename |
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, Esq. 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.
NEWS NEWS NEWS |
Charleston C. K. Wang, Esq. Attorneys-at-Law
| CHARLESTON & SHIRLEY WANG SCHOLARSHIP 2006-2007 The Charleston & Shirley Wang Scholarship was established to recognize the importance and achievements of the foreign-born students at Sycamore High School, City of Montgomery, Ohio. The scholarship is intended to encourage Sycamore’s foreign-born students whose first language is other than English, to continue their education and excel academically at institutions of higher learning. The scholarship also recognizes the importance of the mastery of the English language as a foundation to success in life in USA. In order to be considered for this Scholarship, the applicant must: Be a graduating senior of Sycamore High School. Have received at least ONE full year of ESL (English as a Second Language) instruction while at either Sycamore Junior High School and/or Sycamore High School. Have a minimum cumulative GPA of 3.0. If awarded the scholarship, apply the award to tuition, room and board, and/or books at a 2 or 4 year college immediately following their senior year. This Scholarship will be offered in 2006-2007 and all interested persons are encouraged to contact Sycamore High School, 7400 Cornell Road, Cincinnati OH 45242, (Phone: 513-489-0405) for further details and application form. 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. |
WANGLAW®™
NEWSLETTER
| NON-RESIDENT ALIEN ON APPEAL WINS RIGHT TO SEEK SPOUSAL SUPPORT IN OHIO COURTS In the case of Yawei Zhao v. Qin Qian Zeng (Appeal No. C-020131 First Appellate District, Hamilton County, Ohio 2003), the Court of Appeals affirmed the right of a non-resident alien to seek spousal support via a Complaint for legal separation in the Domestic Relations Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Ohio. In this case, the husband, Yawei Zhao, held a F-2 temporary student visa because of his marriage to Qin Qian Zeng, a F-1 student. When his wife completed her graduate degree, obtained a job in Syracuse, New York and a new H1-B temporary work visa, she decided to file for divorce in Hamilton County, Ohio on February 9, 2001. The husband succeeded in obtaining a dismissal of this divorce action because the wife was a F-1 student and could not satisfy the domiciliary resident requirement for jurisdiction in an Ohio county court. The wife then initiated a petition for divorce via the Consulate General of the People's Republic of China located in New York City. This divorce petition was duly filed in Shanghai Zuhui District Court, China on June 5, 2001. The husband was served with the Chinese divorce petition on August 2, 2001. On August 3, 2001, the husband filed for divorce in Domestic Relations Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton Count. On Ocotober 29, 2001, the wife filed a motion to dismiss the divorce initiated by the husband. In response, the husband on November 7, 2001 amended his complaint from divorce to one for legal separation and continued his action for spousal support. After a hearing before a Hamilton County Magistrate, the trial court issued a decision that for a complaint for legal separation, jurisdiction and venue were proper in Hamilton County but the action must be dismissed because the wife had already invoked the jurisdiction of the Chinese courts by perfecting service upon the husband one day prior to his filing a complaint in Hamilton County. The Magistrate noted that both parties were Chinese nationals who were in the United States on temporary visas and that while both parties wanted to terminate their marriage, Ohio residency requirements precluded them from obtaining a divorce in Hamilton County, Ohio, but permitted the husband to proceed for legal separation. Nonetheless, the husband's effort to get spousal support was denied because jurisdictional priority was given to the Shanghai court to decide all issues related to the marriage and termination of the same. Charleston C. K. Wang instituted an appeal into the First Appellate District of Ohio on five questions of law. On June 13, 2003, the Court of Appeals after reviewing each issue of law de novo, reversed on the fifth assignment without deciding the other four, holding that Ohio's jurisdictional priority rule applies only to state courts with concurrent jurisdiction and not to foreign courts. Accordingly, the lower court erred as a matter of law when it dismissed the husband's action for spousal support by reason of a pending divorce action in China. In his appeal, the husband had also argued that the trial court violated his due-process rights, his right of access to Ohio court, and the sovereignty of the state of Ohio, issues which were not reached because of the disposition of the fifth assignment of error in his favor. In summary, this case stands for the legal proposition that a non-resident alien in Ohio may access Ohio domestic relation courts for the purpose of obtaining spousal support under an action for legal separation, notwithstanding the fact that a parallel action is pending in the courts of another country, including the country of origin. To read the complete decision, click here. |
THE STRUGGLES OF YICK WO AND WO LEE, CHINESE LAUNDRYMEN The following is a true story, the facts of which are recorded in the United States Supreme Court opinion of Yick Wo v. Hopkins: Yick Wo, Wo Lee, and other Chinese were established businessmen who were operating laundries in the city of San Francisco, California. The city of San Francisco then passed a local law (ordinance) which made it illegal for any person to maintain a laundry in a wooden building without first securing a license from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Of the 320 laundries in the city, 310 were made of wood. The Chinese operated 240 laundries or 75% of the city’s total laundries. The applications for licenses filed by 200 Chinese laundries were all denied, while all applications, but for one, filed by non-Chinese applicants were granted. Yick Wo and Wo Lee were convicted of operating laundries in wooden buildings without the required license. They were consequently sent to prison for not paying the fine. To their credit, both began habeas corpus (release the prisoner) actions in the federal court system. Other Chinese laundry operators intervened in support of Yick Wo’s and Wo Lee’s petitions to be released from prison. Their cases eventually reached the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviewed the facts. The facts, fortunately, were blatantly simple: Yick Wo and Wo Lee were aliens of Chinese descent; the city’s fire wardens and sanitary inspectors had inspected their laundries and had approved them; all the applications by Chinese for the newly required license were denied by the Board of Supervisors; all other applications by non-Chinese, save one, were granted. Given the above straightforward facts, the highest Court of the land responded with matching directness. It decided: [T]he facts shown established an administration directed so exclusively against a particular class of persons as to warrant and require the conclusion that whatever may have been the intent of the ordinance as adopted, they are applied by the public authorities charged with their administration, and thus representing the State itself, with a mind so unequal and oppressive as to amount to a practical denial by the State of that equal protection of the laws. The Court also handed down this now famous quote: Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by the public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as to practically make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, ...the denial of justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution. The Court struck a conclusive blow, true and straight, into the heart of the champion of discrimination: No reason whatever, except the will of the supervisors, is assigned why they [Chinese laundry operators] should not be permitted to carry on, in the accustomed manner, their harmless and useful occupation, on which they depend for a livelihood. ...[N]o reason exists except for hostility to the race and nationality to which the petitioners belong, and which in the eye of the law, is not justified. The discrimination is therefore illegal, and the public administration which enforces it is a denial of the equal protection of the laws and a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The imprisonment of the petitioners is therefore illegal, and they must be discharged. Yick Wo and Wo Lee were finally set free from prison by order of the United states Supreme Court. It may be interesting to note that Yick Wo. v. Hopkins happened in 1886, a period in America which is noted for its hostility and hysteria against Chinese. After all, the first Chinese Exclusion Act had just passed in 1882. The past injustice notwithstanding, Yick Wo v. Hopkins remains the just and valid law of the land to this day, over one and a quarter century since its origin. The law of Yick Wo v. Hopkins is truly an early beacon of light and enlightenment for the various modern civil rights statues aimed at protecting the minority’s right to equal employment opportunity, to a livelihood or profession, to equal business opportunity, and to fair economic advancement. Today, such laws would not only protect laundrymen, but all workers, entrepreneurs, business operators, engineers, scientists, physicians, and other persons or professionals who have to earn a livelihood in this country of opportunities. A debt is certainly owed to Yick Wo, Wo Lee, and all those other Chinese laundrymen who took a stand before the law for their rights a century ago. To read the complete Supreme Court decision click here. |