In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reopens and terminates proceedings sua sponte upon finding the respondent's conviction for embezzlement under section 18.2-111 of the Virginia Code was not an aggravated felony theft offense under INA 101(a)(43)(G). The decision was written by Member John Guendelsberger and joined by Member Charles Adkins-Blanch and Member Sharon Hoffman.
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reopens and terminates proceedings sua sponte upon finding the respondent's conviction for embezzlement under section 18.2-111 of the Virginia Code was not an aggravated felony theft offense under INA 101(a)(43)(G). The decision was written by Member John Guendelsberger and joined by Member Charles Adkins-Blanch and Member Sharon Hoffman.
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reopens and terminates proceedings sua sponte upon finding the respondent's conviction for embezzlement under section 18.2-111 of the Virginia Code was not an aggravated felony theft offense under INA 101(a)(43)(G). The decision was written by Member John Guendelsberger and joined by Member Charles Adkins-Blanch and Member Sharon Hoffman.
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 8oo1ofIoogut/ooappeats ceofthec|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 $1"\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 uponopposing 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:
RW ,
r./ | ^1 ' 3 sf r
, 1 )//24V` Deadlines: Date The Honorable Immigration Judge I m m i g r a n t