Tse v. Atty Gen USA , 197 F. App'x 179 ( 2006 )

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-15-2006
Tse v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2113
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Tse v. Atty Gen USA" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 454.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/454
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-2113
JEFFREY HAK WAI TSE,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
Petition for Review of the Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(A29-512-476)
Immigration Judge: Hon. Charles M. Honeyman
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 14, 2006
Before: SLOVITER, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed September 15, 2006)
OPINION
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
Jeffrey Hak Wai Tse has filed a petition for review of a final order of removal of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). In his brief, he argues that the proceedings
before the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) were fundamentally unfair and denied him due
process because he was not represented by counsel at his removal hearing. He also
argues that he can satisfy his burden under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) if
the case is remanded. We need not address those claims for the reasons set forth below.
I.
Facts and Procedural History
Tse, a native and citizen of China, was admitted to the United States in 1988 as a
nonimmigrant visitor but subsequently adjusted his status to that of a lawful permanent
resident in 1990. On May 6, 2003, he was convicted of racketeering and aiding and
abetting attempted alien smuggling in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and 371, and
sentenced to imprisonment for one year and one day.
On August 15, 2003, Tse was served with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) by the
former Immigration and Naturalization Service. The NTA charged him with removability
pursuant to Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. §
1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), for being convicted of an aggravated felony, as defined in INA §§
101(a)(43)(N) (relating to alien smuggling) and 101(a)(43)(J) (relating to racketeering).
Tse filed an application for withholding of removal alleging that because he cooperated
with the United States government and testified against Chinese smugglers, he would be
2
tortured by the smugglers upon his return to China. He further alleged that the Chinese
government would acquiesce, if not participate, in his punishment.
Tse appeared at his hearing on November 18, 2003, pro se. That hearing was
postponed to give Tse the opportunity to find counsel. On January 21, 2004, the
Government requested that the removal proceedings be administratively closed, based on
a belief that Tse had been approved for an “S” visa because of his cooperation with
authorities in several prosecutions. That hearing was recalendared for May 11, 2004 on
the Government’s motion when it learned that Tse had not yet been approved for an “S”
visa. Tse’s counsel moved to withdraw on May 7, 2004, stating that Tse advised counsel
that he will be retaining new counsel for the remainder of the proceedings. Although the
motion was granted on May 10, 2004, Tse appeared at his hearing the next day without
counsel. At that time, Tse asked for an “adjournment” in order to determine the status of
his “S” visa. The IJ denied this implicit motion to continue, found Tse removable as
charged, and ordered him removed to China. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s order. This
timely petition for review followed.
II.
Discussion
After both parties filed briefs in this court, Tse sent a letter to the Clerk dated
March 28, 2006 advising the court that he was granted an “S” visa on December 30, 2005
pursuant to INA § 101(a)(15)(S)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(S)(i). He enclosed a copy of
an order from Immigration and Customs Enforcement granting him the “S” visa together
3
with an I-94 that grants him admission for up to three years from the date of the notice
(which was December 30, 2005). This court construed Tse’s letter as a motion for stay of
removal. The Government did not oppose, and accordingly we granted Tse’s unopposed
stay of removal.
On August 3, 2006, this court directed the parties to advise as to the status of Tse’s
application for an “S” visa and, if such a visa has been granted, to comment upon the
effect of that grant upon the matters at issue in this appeal. Tse responded by letter dated
August 7, 2006, once more enclosing a copy of an order from Immigration and Customs
Enforcement granting him the “S” visa together with an I-94 and stating that he would
now be able to successfully adjust his status to a lawful permanent resident (green card)
on or about December 30, 2008.
The Government initially responded that “due to travel schedules of the relevant
agency personnel . . . [it] has not yet determined the status of Mr. Tse’s visa application,”
and requested an extension until August 24, 2006 to respond to the court’s inquiry. On
that day, the court received a supplemental response filed by the Government to this
court’s order stating, inter alia, that “[b]ecause the visa grant may necessitate further
review and action by the Board of Immigration Appeals,” it requested that we remove the
case from the argument calendar to allow the Government’s counsel to further consult
with agency personnel regarding the appropriate course of action given the visa grant.
The Government further stated that it takes no position at this time regarding Tse’s
request for remand. However, the following day the Government filed a motion to
4
remand to the BIA.
After consideration of the responses received from the parties, the court agrees
with the parties that the most appropriate course of action for it to take is to grant what is
now Tse’s unopposed motion to remand to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency
personnel will be in the position to present their view directly to the BIA regarding the
appropriate course of action in light of the grant of the “S” visa.
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth, we will grant Tse’s petition for review and remand this
matter to the Board of Immigration Appeals for appropriate action.
5