Bitar Turou, A205 829 460 (BIA Oct. 4, 2013)

7/27/2019 Bitar Turou, A205 829 460 (BIA Oct. 4, 2013)

1/12

Gautam J JAGANNATHSocial stice Colaborative317 Washngton Street, #128Oakland, CA 94607

Name: TUROU, BITAR

US Departmen of Jusice

Executive Oce r Imgraon Reviw

Board ofImmigration AppealsOce of h Crk

5107 Lebug Pike. Sute2000Falls Church, Vginia 20530

HS LIT.ork Co PrisonOR3400 Concord Road

York, PA 17402

A 205-829-460

Date of this notice: 10/4/2013

nclosed is a copy of he Boa's cson an ode e abo-rec case.

closue

Pl Mb:Adk-Bh, Ch K.

Sincly,

D CwDon CCie Cek

k

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Bitar Turou, A205 829 460 (BIA Oct. 4, 2013)


2/12

TURO, BITARA205-82960YORK COUNTY3400 CONCORD ROADYORK, PA 17402

Name: TUROU, BITAR

p c

Excuiv Oc Immgato Revie

Board ofImmigration AppealsOce of the Clerk

507 Lebu Pk Sute2000Fals Chrch, Vrginia 20530

O L.ork Co risonOR3400 Concord RoadYork, PA 17402

A 205-829-460

Date of this otice: 10/4/2013

Eclosd s a copy of th Boad's dcision in h aov-rfencd cas. This copy is bngpovdd o yo as a cousy Yo aoy o psntaiv has en s w hsdcison pusua o 8 C.F.R. 1292(a) f h aachd dcsion ods hat you movd o h Unied Sas o as mmgao Judgs dcson odig tha you movd, any petitio r ev of th ataced dcsio mus b e ith an ecivdy he appopa cor of appas hi days of h da of h dcision.

Ecosu

b-B C

Sincely

D cDona CaChif k

k



3/12

"

S pm f cExecutive Oce rImgaon Reew

Decson of te Boad of gatio Appeals

Fl Chuch, Vrginia ie: A20 829 460 - Yok, Pesyv

n re BITAR UOU

REMOVL PROCEEDGS

PPEA

Date

ON HLF O SPONEN Gaut J Jaggt, Eque

ON BEH O HS

CHARGE:

Jee ubierSenioAtoey

T 4 ?013.

Notce Sec 27(a)(2)(A)(iii), I&N Act [8 S.C 1227()(2)(A)(i)] Conited f aggated eny

PPI CATON einaton f Reov Prceeding

he epe o me Sec "DHS) e apeas om Iition udgey 6 20 decio tenting eov prceedng ginst the espndent. The apea i esmied

Te Bd revies n migaton ge ndings ct, nuing ndngs a t the credi oftestny, uder e cey eneus tndd. ee 8 CFR 00(d)()(); Me of R2 &N Dec 629 (A 200); Mtter of S-H 2 I&N De 462 BIA 2002) Te Bd evesquesns f , discretn, d judent d oe sse in e of migation Judgesdecisn de no ee 8 CFR 100(d)()(i)

he eondent a natie citen o te Repbc of u n Augt 8, 202, te esondent convcted prt t a gi pea n Dee of e ny oene of Asut n te Secondegree, n vto of EL CODE. A. Tit 1, 6 2)(2), r ic e enened to a te of8 ye n pon es to be spended er hving served 1 ers, nd he remining 18 mnths tobe eed on robain Ex. 2). Te ign Jdge nd at te HS fae o etabsh t herepondent 2012 eare Asst n e Secod Degee cnvition qies s a "cme o vioencede 1 USC 6, d aggated ny de sectin 101)4)() of e Immigtion daonay ct, 8 S C 0)(4)() tente ocee h e oe

e 8 US.C 6, te te "crime vioence mes eite "(a) oee tat as a a eeenthe e empted se o treatened e o ysic rce agat e peron o ope of e ob y othe oene a ny at, y ts nare, oe a tan a phyica rceaant he eo r prope o anoher may be se i he cue comn the oene



4/12

205 829 460

de oo reew, e aee wth e miation udge ( at 3) at e statue at issue does otioe he use, aempted use, or theatened use of physia e agains the peson or popey ofoter, as a sauoy eleent, d hus, it aot not quai as a "rime of ioene uder 8 USC 6(a) Fuhermoe, he Unied Staes Cou of ppes he hid Ciu, where s mater ses,h und ha the me of iolene detion de 6(b) es to those oenses here hee is "asubstta risk tha he ator itetionay ue physia e in oming hs me (emphasis

dded). See a v Gozaes 414 F3d 464, 472 (3d Ci. 2005); see aso e v BCE 493 F.3d 303,307 (3d Ci. 2007).

The Supreme Cou i Monciee v oe 33 SCt 1678 (2013), idiaed th a "ategoriaappoah mus rs be employed o deteie hehe a state oense quaies as "aggraaedoy uder he , hih requies examng "ot to the ts of e piul prior ae, buisead o heher "he sate ste deng he rie of oition ategoaly ts whin the"generi deal deniion of a oespondg aggraated felony See i a 1684 (itigGonzaes v ueasAvaez 549 US 183, 185-187 (2007)) In addition, "w]hee a staterimializes dieent kinds of odut, some of whih wold onstiute [agaated feloies hieohers woud ot, e o may appy a modied ategorial appoah, here he o "may look

beyod he statuor eemets to detene the parul p of he satte ude hi the dedtas atualy oited See enis v Att Ge of the S 633 F3d 20, 206 (3d Cir 2011) In isase, the eawe oese of ssau in he Seod eee may be ommied in eeen diere ways,some of ih may inole eiher ntenion o a reless menta stae, suh a e statute isdiisibe d would o ategoally qui a a "me of iolee ( at 3) Applying he modiedaegoa appoah o he onition eords subied by the HS, e mmigratio Judge d thahe ould ot detemne he tes of e espondents hnge of pea to Cot of he d usIditmet, whih a modied om ssault i the Fist eee o the lesse iuded oense ofssault in he Seond eee s odiaon hges he mes ea equied of e oese omhat ofintetionay ausig physial injy o oher peso exlusiely, to a moe expsie readingof he mens ea requiement hh ot oy alos e defendt to also be oied eckessy

asig physia i o aoe person, ut also adding he eqreme hat it by meas of a deadyeapo or a dngeous istmet, well (empasis added)

The our i guia v Attey Genea of S 663 .3d 692 (3d Ci 2011), osidered thaathough "[m]e ea is o aed the 16(b)] detion, boh the Supeme Co d [s] ouhae osideed me ea hen deteing what onsttes a ime of iolee der 6 ), ad"[ unde those preedents, ries inolig amens ea of egligene or of a t of reessess thae o as] alled pue reklessness hae been held not to be mes of iolene ude 16(b)beause, by hei ae, they do not rse a sustia rsk at physial e ay be used at 696.

(itng an v Gonzaes supa a 465 and Leoca Ashc 543 US , 1 (2004))

oed by he Supreme Cou in Monce v e s i mus st "exie wha he stateoiio eessrily inoed, o the s uderlyig the ase, [the Cou] must pesume ha he

1 Te sautoy lgage of C A. it 11, 612(a)(2), poides i rele p, tht a persooits Asaul i te Seond egee en he "eklessly or itenioally auses physia ij ooher peson by mes of a deady eapon o a dagerous insmet. ."

2



5/12

. (

A205 829 460

conviction 'ested upon [noing] mo tn ls of te] acts cmnaze, n n eteminwhethe even ose acts ae ncopasse by gnc ea ons" at 68 (citingJonson v Unte Sttes 559 US 133 137 2010)) T o we, oweve ta e cus onte nim conduct ciminaze y ste satte is not invtation o appy ega magnation toe state oense; tee s be a istic pobabiity, not a eoetca ossiity, tat te Stte woudappy ts statue to conduct at fs oside te genec ention of a ce" Id at 168-85 (citingGoes v uensvrez supr t 97)

Tus, in tis case we n e Immgaon Jdge opy api te catgocal aysis s tby e Cout in Moncre v oer and evant eaw st cases statutoy auoty ncoctly detened a te mnmum conduc ncessy to otan a convcon un awsAssaut in Scond ege, e staute of convicion in s case, is pe cklessnss" wic asbeen n wee te peeato s no sk of intnony sng c in comiing s ce, owee ce s used accidentay," d deened is fals osie e uvew of 6b) at )See Unte Sttes v Prson 955 Fd 858, 866 ( 1992), aogated on ote gonds byBeg v Unte Sttes 55 S 17 2008) Te Imiation udge noted at e Supme Co ofeawe consed ement of eckssness i eawas Assaut in te Scon egee onse ineor v Stte 817 A2d 804 ( Sup 2002), ndng in a cse a t ly of appoacing ahose-dawn veice at nit on a dk nrow conty od an aempng o pass wiin 00 fe of annesecon a a sped in excss of he poste 50 mp spee i constited ess conuct wiccaused e coision esuting in seous ijuy o e bggys ee occpts" In eacing ts ecision,te co cey eine EL CODE AN t 1 263 wic dens e elemens of negigentd ecess causation

Feoe, ckessness" in eawae is dened by EL CODE A TL 11 21( e ), whicpovis n peinent p, s ows:

s l s f m

e) Reckessy"A peson acts eckessy w espec o eement of oense wen epeson is aw of n conscioy dsgs sbstantia and justabe isk a eeement exists o w esul om e conduc e s us of sc a nate d ee tadiseg eeof constittes a goss deaton om t stnd of conuct at a asonae

peson wod osee in te situation A peson wo ceates suc a isk but is unawe teofsoey by eson of vounty intoicaton so acs ckessy wi espect theeto

As noted by e esponen on ape we te appicaton of elawes ntion oecklessness contplates at e acto wod ave known a pysca njy was at isk, eckessessin eaws Assaut in te Second egee oense oes no contemae tha e aco undeook a

substtial s of intenona ce," and og e acto diseged th sk of injuy, e sueoes not eque tha e aco know a ee is a substantia s of ientiona se of ce" See Rsie a 10 itng to cass appng eaws dention o ecssness o ot onses heesponden gues tat eaw consides eckssness in e contt of a disegd of e sk of aesulting pysica iy," and not e subsntia isk of te ntentional use of ce" See (cinges v eare 977 A2 898 Tabe) (e Sup, 2009) eawe Supeme Co n a casenvoving eckess endangeen n e st degee, nd te dendant must hav ecklessy



6/12

' ,,

A205 29 460

enggedn cndct wc cetes ssti s det t ne esn Baley v Delaware925 A2d 50 {ble) (Del.Sr2007) (Delwre Sreme C nted n cse invlving cge frst deee mrde by bse r neglect t te stte d t prve t e dend reckessl cede de f er newb n wen e w "wre f nd cncisy dsregrd[ ed] bttil ndnstible rik fs de) Mrever in Krk v State, 9 A2d 2 {be) (Del Sr 2005) n cse simil e ird Crcis deciin i Tan v Goaes supra were te cr d te

eylvni crime f reckes bg r exding ws nt crme f vience nder 6(b) s it didt ivve e intent e f ysicl rce te dendt was cged nd cnviced f Asl ie Secnd Degree were te crt nd e defendnt's cndct r men rea i resec ecriminl ene i.e were e dendnt ed n ne f e stve bers wic sed ret csed e de f er nd tw f is cldren nd seris nies t sever ter indvidlsin e ent iing met e criter f "eckessy s dened in e Delwe Cde Nbly sin Tan tere s n indctn t e cme invlved r creed "ssntl risk f te intentnl efpyicl rce i cmitng e ense

rterme te resndet n el ctes stte's reqremet s t e se f eier dedywe r dger insrent cse yc in t e vcim See C A it.

62()(2) Hwever s ged by e resnden e cnvcted n Delwre f Aslt in teSecnd Deee cvers " rd sw f ems e crcerized s dedl r dngers my beed. See Rs brief t (cting D C. A. it 222(4) (5)). nclded ng esedgers nsment re cemicl rys eg mce er gs eer ry ec We cn sy

e e f tese srys resents sbstt risk tt te ctr wil intentiona se yicl rce cmtng is crime in vitn f te Dewre ste.

Cnseqey we gree w e espndents cntentin rst e Cts decisin nMoncie v Hole tere is " reliic rbiy n eretcl ily t e Ste fDelwre wld py it Asst n e Secnd Deee stte cndct t fls tsde te genecdenin f crime f vience. See id 65. we e nt esded y e elte

rgmen presented by e DHS nd rm te mmgrin Jdge cncsin e resndents202 Dewe As in te Secnd Degree cnvctin de nt qi s "crime f vience ndereite USC 6() r (b) nd cnvictin r ggrvted feny nder secin 0()(4)(F) fte Act. A c we cncr wit te mmtin Jdge' cnclin tt te DHS cld n meet ibrden f rf s e rendens remvbii by cer cnvincing and neqivcl evidence adnd e rerly eited ee rceedngs. See secin 240(c)()(A) f e Act US.C 229(c)()()

Accrdngly te lwng rder wll e enteed

RER e Derment f Hmeld Secrity's el is dsmssed



7/12

UNITED STATES DPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXCUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRAION REVIWUNIED STATES IMMIGRATION COUR

YORK PENNSYLVANIA

File 205829-460 May 6 2013

I the Matter o

BITAR TUROU

RESPONDENT

CHARGES:

APPICATIONS:

))

)

IN MOVA PROCEDINGS

27{a){2{{i) o te Imgratio ad Natioaity Act {INA); aale at ay tie aer adissio covicted a agravated elyas deied Sectio101 {a){43){F) the INA a crie voleceas deied i Secto 16 o Title 1 Uited States Code but oticludig a purely plitical oee (r wich the ter oprismet ordered s at least oe year)

ON BEHAF OF RESPONDNT PRO SE

ON BHAF OF HS RICHARD OBRIEN ESQURE ASSSAN CHF COUNSELIgrat ad Customs EorceetYrk Pensylvaia

ORAL DECISON OF THE IMMIGRATON JUDGE

Resodet s a 41 year old ale, atve and citze Pala O March 19

2013 te Depaet o Helad Securty iled a tice to appear i this aer The

ilig o te Notice t Apear vested jurisdctio with this Cu Tat docuet s

arked as Exhibit No 1

1


8/12

On Apri 5 203 the Cu tk peadings The respndent admitted

aegatins thrugh 5 S the questin bere the Curt was whether r nt the

respndent was emvabe as charged The Cu marked a packet dcuments int

the recrd as Exhibit 2 n Apri 5 203

On April 6 203 the Depament meland Security submitted a brie t the

Cu in supp the aggravated eny charge In the Gvernment's brie the

Gvernment argued that nithstanding the act that the respndents criminal ense

cud have been carred ut reckessly nnetheless the respndent had been

cnvcted a crme vience as that term is deined in Sectn 0 (e}(43}(F) n

accrdance with Aquiar v Attrney Genera the United States 663 F3d 692 (3rd Cir20)

Under Sectn 0 (a)(43}(F) the IA the term aggravated elny is deined

as a crime vience as that term is deined in 8 United States Cde Sectin 6 r

which the term r imprisnment is at least ne year Under 8 United States Cde

I Secin the term crime vence s dened as a) an ense that has as aneement t the use r attempted use r threatened use physical rce against thepersn r prperty anther; r b) any ther ense that is a elny and that by its

nature invlves a substantal risk that physical rce against the persn r prperty

anther may be used n the curse cmmitting the ense

T quai as a crime vience within the meaning 8 United States Cde

Sectin (a} the crimina statute must require a mens rea speciic intent t use

rce mere recklessness is insuicient Tran v Gnzales, 44 F3d 464 40 (3rd Cir2005)

It is nt dispsitive i the crme may be prven by a shwing speciic intent Al

that is necessary t place s utside Sectin 6(a) is that it culd be established with

A205-829460 2 May 6 203


9/12

c

proof of a lessermen rea. See Id. ere, the Cou would fnd that assumng the facts

n the case n the est lght fr the Government that the respndent was convcted

under elawae Code Secton 2(a(2. hat prvsn states a persn s gulty of

assault n the secnd degree when t s clear the persn recklessly r ntentnally

causes physcal nu to another by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerus

nstrument. ere the Court would fnd that force s not an element of the oese

Accordngl, the Cou wuld ind that the respondent's crme s not a crme of

volence as that term s defned n 8 Unted States Code Sectn 1(a.

he questn then ecomes whether or not the respndent's crme s a crme of

volence as that term s defned n 18 Unted States Code Secton 1(b. ere the

crme n queston s a felony. he ssue then s whether by ts nature, the cre

nvolves a sustantal rsk that physcal force aganst the persn r prpey of another

may e used n the course of commttng the oense.

In detemnng whether a crme s an aggravated felny the Cou frst as a

prelmnay mtte, apples the categorcal approach. hat s that t loos to thestatute of convcton only to determne whether t satsfes the generc defnton of

aggravated felony. Where, hwever, the statute s dvsble, that s that t defnes cean

oenses that may be aggravated felones and cean oenses that are not, the Cou s

permed to look at the statute of convcton to determne under whch provsn of the

dvsble statute the respondent was cnvcted.

ere the statute s dvsble. Secton 2(a(2 states f the persn reclessly or

ntentonally causes phscal nu to another by means of a deadly weapon or a

dangerous nstument he ndctment n the espondent's case does not cntan a

charge for assault n the secnd degree. Rather t appears that the respondent ped

dwn from a charge of assault n the frst degree. he tems f the amendd count

A20-829-40 3 M , 2013


10/12

quesio ae o avalae o e Cou Accodiy he Cou cao look o a o

deemie wic of he vsile eemes he saue he esode was covced

Accodly, he Cou mus ake e ovso i queso a s imu ad

eefoe ook o wee he espodes covico fo eckessy caus ysica

iuy o aoe eso y meas of a deady weao o a daeous sume s a

cime of voece as a em is defed 18 Ued Saes Code Secio 16(b)

Cimes commed w ue ecklessess wee he eeao us o sk of

eoally usig foce i commiti s cime o wee foce s used accidealy fall

ouside of Secio 16) Aguila v Aoey Geeal 663 F3d 2 68- 3d C2011) quo Ta 414 F3d 46

e Td Cicui "ue" eckessess "exiss we e mens ea of a cme

lacks a e dese o wiless o use foce o cause am a a" Aguila, 663F3d a 67 quog ed Saes v Paso, F2d 88 866 3d C 2)aeaed o oe ouds yBegay v Uied Saes 3 S 137 (2008))

e Cou Aguila coased a ue" eckessess cie Reckless u isdscussed i Ta w a cassc examle of a ie coved y 18 ed Saes Code

Secos 16() uga oi ha oly e late voved he sk of eoal

pyscal foce Agula, 663 F3d a 68ee he Cou fids a he oese quesio could be violaed hou ue

ecklessess I maki his fidg e Cou cosdes he decsio of he Speme

Cou of Deawae e DeHo v Sae 817 A2d 804 (Suee Cou of Delawae2002). ha case e defeda was ecklessly dv a auooble a g we

se a io a ose daw uy w 100 fee of a esecio o a uied

umaked shoude ess aow couy oad Te Cou foud a "e folly of

aoachg a hose daw vecle a h o a dak aow cou oad ate

A20829460 4 ay 6 013


11/12

C.

o pass w 100 ee iersecio a speed i excess te posted 50 e

per r speed lii costed reckess codc wic cased e clsio reslti

serios ijry o e bs ree occpas d erere cosiued assa

scod deree I reac ts decsi te Co carel exaied 11 Delaware

de ec 23 wc deied reckless or elet casatio

ere e Cou fids a te respodet coud ave bee coviced o e

oese to pre reckessess Accrdily e C wd d tat te Tird

Circis deciso i Aqiar 3 F3d a 9899 does t appy Accrdily e Cods tat e Gover as aled esablis by clear ad covc evdece at

e rspdet is reovabe as cared I does t appear at e respode is

otheise revabl r te Ued aes

Accrdi it is te order o te Co ta tese proceedis be teriated

it rejdce o re-ili

signture

A58290

Peae ee the nextaqe for eectronicANDREW R ARTURIraio Jde

5 May 2013


12/12

/Isl

Iigraton Judge ANDREW R. ARTHUR

aha on Jne 6, 2013 at 9:5 PM GMT

A0860 6 My 6 03

Documents

Bitar Turou, A205 829 460 (BIA Oct. 4, 2013)