DiAmoreSiah, Carmen Law Ofce of Carmen IAmoreSiah 735 Bishop Street, Ste 201 Honolulu, H96813 Name: NOUEKOSEDpnJticExecutive Oce r Immigaion Review BigApps Oc50LesbuPikS000 FaJ ChrchVrgin204S/CE Oice of Chief Couns el O595 Aa Moana Boulevard onolulu, 96813999 A 089-24823 Date of ths notce: /9/2013 Encosed is a copy of he Boad's decision and odein he above-eenced cae. Encosue Mb: Py, RgSinceely, Dc Donna CaChieClek wamkCite as: Kosei Inoue, A089 244 823 (BIA July 9, 2013)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/28/2019 Kosei Inoue, A089 244 823 (BIA July 9, 2013)
U.S Department ofJusticeExecutive Oce mmigaion Review
Decision of he Board of Imigaion Appeals
Fas Church, Virginia 22041
Fe: A089 244 823 - Honoluu HI
In re KOSEi NOUE
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
APPEAL
Date
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Carmen Amore-Sah Esqure
ON BEHALF OF HS: Chandu ateyAssstant ChefCounsel
CHARGE
JUL - 9 2013
Notce Sec. 237(a)(l )(C)(), &N Act 8 U.S.C § 1227(a)()(C)()] Nonmmgrat volated condtons f status
APPLICATION Termnaton; voluntay depaure
e respodent appeals om the decson of he Immaton udge dated October 7 201,denyng te respondents moton to tenate ndng the respondent removabe as charged andgrtng the respondent voluntary departure under sectn 240B(b) of the Imgraton and Natonaly Act, 8 U.S.C. § 229c(b). The appeal wl be dsmssed.
We a te decson of te Immgraton Judge concludng that te respndent sremovable under secto 237(a)(l )(C)() of the Act 8 U.SC § 227(a)( l )(C)() because hevolated the condtns of hs "E2 nonmmant when hs employment was ternatedby s pettonng employer ( J. at 56). We do not nd clear eor n te Immgraton Judge'sndngs of ct related to the respondents E2 status or hs empoymet story. The respondent wa admted to he Unted States on May 30 2009 ased on a nonmgrant E2 vsa pettonthat was led on hs behalf by Kaze, Inc. ( J. at 4) Kaze Inc. ndcated n the vsa petton that the respondent woud seve as a general manager and would be pad $60000 per year (.J. at 4)The respndent was authorzed to reman n the Unted States pusuant to hs admsson n E2stas assmng he comped wth al the condtons of such saus unt May 29 201 (. J at 4)Kaze Ic teated the respondents employment on October 29 2009 (.J at 4) On
November 3 2009 the respondent ed an appcaton to extend or change nonmgrant status(Form I539) n whch e requested to change hs staus o E2 to B1 ( J at 4) hsapplcatn was dened b te ted States tesp nd graton Seve SS) on January 4, 200 (. J at 45).
We ar te Imgratn Judges detenaton that the termnaton of the respondentsemployent wt e pettonng treaty nvestor constutes a volaton of a condtn of terespondents stats. The respondents satus n the Unted States was based sely on semplyee reatonshp wt te treaty nvestr 8 CF.R. § 214.2(e)(3). Once ths empoyent relatonshp was tenated the respondent voated a cndton of hs status. See 8 CFR.§ 214.2(e)(8) (dscussng te terms and condtns ofE treaty saus).
In hs regard we nd npersasve the respondens argumen hat he mmgraton Judgeered n ndng hm removabe as charged becase he I539 denal notce ndcaes that herespondent "may reman n the cent nonmmgran stts ntl the expraton date ndcaedon the appcan Arrval and epe Record (Form 94) (J a 45 h 3 a 43) Thevery nex senence n he noce ndcaes "[however shoud the applcant l o mantan
nonmm staus he applcan mus depar the Uned Staes (xh 3 at 43) As theresponden d no manan vald 2 nonmmgran saus becase hs empoymen wastenated he 539 dena noce aords hm no proecon om remova
Fnally we nd no bass to renstae ether a pror 2 vsa led by anoher petoner andapproved on October 2 2006 or he 2 vsa by whch he respondent obtaned hs most recent admsson nto he Unted States (Respondents Br a 4) We do no nd cle eor n eImmgraton Jdges deenaon ha he responden d no esablsh he was the vcm ofad (J at 6) Moreover even assmng arguendo hat he responden was he vcm of audwh respec to he 2 petons nether the Immgraon Judge nor ths Boar has jursdctonover sch pettons
In sum we a he mmgratons deermnaon a the responden voaed thecondons of hs stats when hs employmen wh he eay nvesor was termnaed Weherere aso arm the conngent deermnaton ha the respondent s removable nder secton237(a)()(C)() of e Ac because he volated he condtons of hs 2 sats
The Immaton Jdge graned the responden a 60ay vounary epare perocondoned upon he posng of a volntary deparure bond n the amoun of $500 o theDepaent of Homeand Secry wthn ve busness ays om he dae of the order (J at 7)Eecve Janay 20 2009 prsuan to 8 CFR § 24026(c)(3)() an aen gred volntarydeparure shal whn 30 days of ng an appeal wth the Board sbmt scen proof ha the
reqred vonary deparre bond was posed wh he epamen of omeand Secy an fthe alen does no provde mely proof to the Boar e Board wl no rensae he perod ofvountay epae n s nal order
The recor does no reec tha he respondent sbmted mely proof of havng pa thevolnay depaure bon The Immgraton Jdge propery advsed the responden of the needto nfo he Board whn 30 days of ng an appeal ha he bond has been pad (lJ at 7;
Noce o Responents Graned Volntay epare) Therere he vountary depaure perodgranted by the Immgraon Jdge w not be renstaed and the responden sha be removedom the Uned Staes pursuan to e Immgraon Judges alteate order See 8 CFR§ 24026(c)(3) Matter of Gamero, 25 I&N Dec 64 (BA 200) Accordngy he lowng
orders wll be enered
We have not consere e edence he respondent sbme o e Bo we hs appeah been pendng The Boad s an appellae body whose ncon s o revew nocreate a record See Matter o Fedorenko 9 &N ec 57 74 (BIA 984) To the exent hsevdence s new he responden hs not led a moton o remand and we canno consder new evdence presene r he rs tme on appea 8 CFR § 003(d)(3)(v) Moreoverhe responden has not shown how hs new evdence was no prevosly avaabe and could not
FURTHER ORER The espode s odeedao udges aleave ode o eoval
eoved o apa pusuan o he
OR THE BOARD C:
have bee peseed a hs heag bee he gao udge 8 CFR § 0032(c) Maerof Coelho 20 N ec 464 47 (A 992) Coseque we adudcaed he appea basedupo he evdece coaed he ecod whe was bee he mmgao udge
commenced with the iing o a Notice to Appear with the
Immigration Court at onouu, on February 24, 2010. ee Exhibit
1
The respondent with the assistance o counse admitted
aegations l 2 and 3, denied aegation 4 and contested
removabiity Respondent designated Japan shoud that become
necessary
The Individua hearing was conducted on October 7, 201Exhibits l through, and incuding were received Exhibit 10
was marked or identiication ony
At the Individua hearing, respondent argued that the case
shoud be terminated and, in the aternative, that the
Immigration Judge shoud restore respondent to his E2 status
In the aternative, the respondent requested vountary departure
Respondent ied numerous documents reated to the business,
which the Court has reviewed These documents appear to revea
the oowing events
On or about December 20 2005, respondent signed a seice
agreement between Wordwide Pet ervices Inc ( "Wordwide), a
awaii corporation, and Baytown, LLC ( Baytown), a awaii
imited iabiity company ee Exhibit 31 operate a pet grooming
service, ee Exhibit Respondent, as president o Wordwide,
Wordwide was incorporated by the respondent apparenty tooperate a pet grooming service ee Exhibit 9 Respondentsartices o incorporation were ied on Deceer 21, 2005 withthe tate o awaii, Department o Commerce and Consumer Aairs,Business Registration Division
A 089 244 823 2 · October , 2011
7/28/2019 Kosei Inoue, A089 244 823 (BIA July 9, 2013)
s an accurate, verbatim transcrpt of the recordng as provded by
the Executve Offce for Iigration Revew and that ths s the
orgnal transcrpt thereof for the file of the Executve Office
for graton Revew.
�<6� 7� B. Whtlock, Transcriber 7ree State Reportng, Inc
. •
December 7, 2011(completon date)
submsson of this CERTIFICATE PAGE, the Contractor certifesthat a Sony EC/T-147, 4channel transcrber or equvalent, and/orC, as descrbed n Section C, paragraph C3..2 of the contract,was used to transcrbe the Record of roceeding shown in the above