Conley, Danielle M., Esq.

Kuck Immigration Partners LLC

801 0 Roswell Road, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30350
Name: HUH, Ml HWANG
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Office of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pih.?, Suite ](}()(}
Falls Church, Vir-ginia 2:1041
DHSIICE Office of Chief Counsel- ATL
180 Spring Street, Suite 332
Atlanta, GA 30303
A 045-809-070
Date of this notice: 1/9/2013
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Guendelsberger, John
Sincerely,
0Gn.ttL (! WvV
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Userteam: Docket
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: Mi Hwang Huh, A045 809 070 (BIA Jan. 9, 2013)
HUH, Ml HWANG
A045809..()70
LS. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Office of the Clerk
5 J 07 Pike. Sm"te 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel ATL
180 Spring Street, Suite 332
NORTH GEORGIA DETENTION CENTER
622 MAIN STREET SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
GAINESVILLE, GA 30501
Name: HUH, Ml HWANG A 045-809-070
Date ofthis notice: 1/9/2013
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision in the above-referenced case. This copy is being
provided to you as a courtesy. Your attorney or representative has been served with this
decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1292.5(a). If the attached decision orders that you be
removed from the United States or affirms an Immigration Judge's decision ordering that you
be removed, any petition for review of the attached decision must be filed with and received
by the appropriate court of appeals within 30 days of the date of the decision.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Guendelsberger, John
Sincerely,
DOrutLCt1ftA)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Userteam: : . <. ,.. '
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: Mi Hwang Huh, A045 809 070 (BIA Jan. 9, 2013)
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
File: A045 809 070- Atlanta, GA
Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Date:
JAN 9 2013
In re: MI HWANG HUH a.k.a. Mi Hyang Kim a.k.a. Mi Hyang Huh a.k.a. Mi Htang Huh
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
APPEAL AND MOTION
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Danielle M. Conley, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS: Mary C. Lee
Assistant Chief Counsel
APPLICATION: Remand
The respondent, a native and citizen of the Republic of Korea (commonly known as
"South Korea"), appeals the decision of the Immigration Judge, dated August 28, 2012, ordering
her removal from the United States. We will dismiss the respondent's appeal and deny her
Motion to Remand Removal Proceedings and Hold Briefing Schedule in Abeyance.
We review Immigration Judges' findings of fact for clear error, but questions of law,
discretion, and judgment, and all other issues in appeals, de novo. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3).
As an initial matter, we reject the respondent's claims that she was somehow deprived a
fundamentally fair removal hearing because a Korean interpreter was not employed at her
second, third, and fourth removal bearings or because the Immigration Judge was biased.
1
The
respondent, who was represented by counsel at her second, third, and fourth removal hearings,
was never called to testify in these proceedings. Thus, like in the non-binding case of Drobny v.
INS, 947 F.2d 241, 245 (7th Cir. 1991), the respondent was not denied a reasonable opportunity
to present evidence or be present in a meaningful way. The respondent's assertions that the
Immigration Judge "may be biased" are without merit. The respondent has also not
demonstrated that she was prejudiced by the absence of a Korean interpreter at her second, third,
and fourth removal hearings or the Immigration Judge's alleged bias. See Lonyem v. US. All "y
Gen., 352 F.3d 1338, 1341-42 (I lth Cir.2003); Patel v. US. Att'y Gen., 334 FJd 1259, 1263
(II th Cir. 2003). In short, the respondent has not established that, in the absence of the
perceived defects, the outcome of these removal proceedings would be different.
Turning to the merits of the Immigration Judge's decision, we affirm the Immigration
Judge's removal order. The respondent was admitted to the United States as a conditional
permanent resident in 1997. See section 216(a)(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
8 U.S.C. 1186a(a)(l). However, in 2002, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service
terminated her conditional permanent resident status. See section 216( c )(2) of the Act.
Additionally, in 2009, the respondent was convicted of theft by shoplifting and sentenced to a
12-month term of imprisonment. In light of these circumstances, the respondent, through
1
A Korean interpreter was used at the first removal hearing (Tr. at 1-3 ).
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: Mi Hwang Huh, A045 809 070 (BIA Jan. 9, 2013)
A045 809 070
counsel, conceded that. she was subject to removal from this country under the provisions of
sections 237(a)(l)(D)(i) and (2)(A)(iii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(l)(D)(i), (2)(A)(iii)
(I.J. at 2; Exhs. I, 2, 38; Tr. at 7-8). As the respondent did not request any form of relief from
removal, it was proper for the Immigration Judge to enter an order of removal in this case.
The respondent has not demonstrated that remanded proceedings are warranted. See Matter
of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 4 71 (BIA 1992) (recognizing that a motion to remand is generally
subject to the same substantive requirements as a motion to reopen). Even if the respondent's
conviction for theft has been modified such that she is no longer subject to removal as an alien
who has been convicted of an aggravated felony, she would remain subject to removal under the
provisions of section 237(a)(l)(D)(i) of the Act because her conditional permanent resident
status has been terminated. In order to overcome her removability under the provisions of
section 237(a)(l)(D)(i) of the Act, she requests remanded proceedings in order to establish that
she warrants a "good faith marriage waiver" under the provisions of section 216(c)(4)(B) of the
Act.
Remanded proceedings are not warranted because the respondent has not demonstrated that
she is prima facie eligible for the requested waiver nor demonstrated that she warrants a waiver
as a matter of discretion. See Li v. US. Aft 'y Gen., 488 F.3d 1371, 1375 (II th Cir. 2007). The
respondent has not presented any persuasive evidence that she entered the qualifying marriage in
good faith. See 8 C.F.R. 1216.5(e)(2) (describing the evidence that shall be considered in
adjudicating a "good faith marriage waiver"). Additionally, notwithstanding her length of
residence in this country and the presence of a child who is apparently requesting immigration
benefits under United States Citizenship and Immigration Services' Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals program, the respondent has not presented sufficient equities to demonstrate
that, despite her criminal record, she warrants a waiver as a matter of discretion. Considering
these circumstances, we decline to remand the record to the Immigration Judge for further
proceedings.
Finally, the respondent has not presented any legal or regulatory basis to hold the briefing
schedule in abeyance. This Board is required to issue decisions as soon as practicable, with a
priority for cases or custody appeals involving detained aliens. 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(e)(8).
Following the granting of the respondent's briefing extension request, the parties were provided
a reasonable opportunity to submit briefs in support of their respective positions. As such, it is
now appropriate to enter the following orders in this case.
ORDER: The respondent's appeal is dismissed.
FURTHER ORDER: The respondent's Motion to Remand Removal Proceedings and Hold
Briefmg Schedule in Abeyance is denied.
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: Mi Hwang Huh, A045 809 070 (BIA Jan. 9, 2013)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE .FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
File: A045-809-070 August 28, 2012
In the Matter of
MI HWANG HUH
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
RESPONDENT
\
J.
CHARGES: 237 (a) (1) (D), 237 (a) (2) (A) (iii).
I

APPLICATIONS: None.
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: EBA GALEB, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS: MARY LEE, Esquire
ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE
The respondent is an adult female native and citizen of the
Republic of Korea (South Korea) who was placed in removal
proceedings with the filing of a Notice to Appear with the Court
charging removability pursuant to the provisions of 237(a) (1) (D)
(termination of conditional permanent resident) and
237 (a) (2) (A) (iii) (aggravated felony).
Respondent initially appeared before this Court on July 3,
1
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

2012, pro se. The Court reset after giving an advisal of rights
to give her an opportunity to find legal counsel.
On July 10, 2012, and August 21, 2012, respondent was
represented by counsel and counsel each time requested a
continuance for attorney preparation.
On today's date respondent filed written pleadings, signed
both by herself and counsel. Those pleadings acknowledge proper
service of the Notice to Appear, admit the factual allegations
and concede removability on all charges. Having reviewed the
I-213, the record of conviction and termination of conditional
resident status, as well as reviewing the admissions and
concessions on the respondent's written pleadings, the Court
finds that removability has been established by clear and
convincing evidence on ~ t h charges. The written pleadings
specifically do not request any relief.
Having been found removable and represented by counsel and
making an affirmative waiver of any relief, the Court orders
removal from the United States to the Republic of Korea on the
charges contained in the Notice to Appear.
A045-809-070 2 August 28, 2012
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

(.
CERTIFICATE PAGE
I hereby certify that the attached proceeding before JUDGE
J. DAN PELLETIER, in the matter of:
MI HWANG HUH
A045-809-070
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
is an accurate, verbatim transcript of the recording as provided
by the Executive Office for Immigration Review and that this is
the original transcript thereof for the file of the Executive
Office for Immigration Review.
J1If:!qA: QDC,K
FREE STATE REPORTING, Inc.
OCTOBER 18, 2012
(Completion Date)
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