Natalee Case Discussion #813 3/31/09 - 4/5/09

[Buckeye]

I mean the one speaking into the microphone, not the one marked in the box.

Maybe Bastibro knows who it is since he is fond of that gathering and uses it as his avatar.

I think that that is Antonio Carlo.

[Anna]

FACT

Draw a 30" x 30" square on the ground.  Lay down in that square diagonally.  Unless you are over 5'8", tell me that your TORSO does not fit into that area. Keep in mind there is no longer flesh, only bone and some fabric

It can be assumed the door would be at least the height of the cage which is approx 2.5 ft.  2 ft = 24 inches and .5 is 6 more for the 30 square inches even without the larger measurement for being on the door and not just one grid.

See above for the diagonal measurement of the minimum possible measurement even assuming one grid which I personally don't believe it was.  Was larger.  Was on door not just a grid.

But even so, the 30" square grid allows for the 42" diagonal measurement.

That's why my TV screen is not nearly as large as it sounds.  Measured on the diagonal is larger than either side.

[Tamikosmom]

GOOD MORNING MONKEYS!!

Well ... eldest son just called and ... he, DIL and 2 1/2 year old grandson are just boardING the ferry for the two hour ride from Vancouver Island to the mainland.  They are staying with us for the weekend as there is a family gathering later today.

I am so excited.  I have not held that little guy in my arms for over a month.  At this moment Papa is setting up the Thomas Train table.

 

Janet
7:50 AM

[texasmom]

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=07-2457U.01A


United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 07-2457

EDWARDO A.A. MATHEW,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF

THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before

 Lynch, Chief Judge,

Torruella and Boudin, Circuit Judges.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Edwardo Alexandro Mathew on brief pro se.

    Lauren E. Fascett, Trial Attorney, Civil Division, Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division and David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, on brief for respondent.

 

October 29, 2008
  


         Per Curiam. Petitioner Edwardo Alexandro Mathew was ordered removed, under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), on the ground that he had been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude and thus was an inadmissible alien. After carefully reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the order of removal essentially for the reasons given by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). We add only the following comments:

         1. Petitioner’s Criminal Records. As for the Apostille, 8 C.F.R. § 1287.6 is not the exclusive method for authenticating a document. See Yongo v. INS, 355 F.3d 27, 31 (1st Cir. 2004). Rather, authentication is a “flexible” doctrine and “requires nothing more than proof that a document or thing is what it purports to be.” Id. at 30. Here, since there is no question that the documents certified by the Apostille are anything other than copies of petitioner’s Aruban criminal record, it is plain that this record was admissible for the purposes of establishing petitioner’s conviction.
        
          Petitioner next claims that there were translation errors in this record. However, in determining whether a particular offense qualifies as a crime of moral turpitude, “[t]he focus . . . is on the inherent nature of the crime of conviction, as opposed to the particular circumstances of the actual crime committed.” Nguyen v. Reno, 211 F.3d 692, 695 (1st Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). Thus, it is the definition contained in the applicable criminal statute that is the controlling factor. Maghsoudi v. INS, 181 F.3d 8, 14 (1st Cir. 1999).

         Here, it is plain that at least one of petitioner’s convictions, the one under Art. 315, qualifies as a crime of moral turpitude. That is, a conviction under this article requires both that the defendant intended to cause, and actually did cause, serious physical harm. See Nguyen, 211 F.3d at 695 (it is a crime of moral turpitude “to cause serious injury intentionally to another person”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted; emphasis added). Thus, petitioner was properly treated as an arriving alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) and properly found inadmissible under § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).
      
         2. The Second Charge. Petitioner next argues that the BIA could not remove him on the basis of having been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude without first having determined that he had fraudulently concealed this conviction in order to obtain his adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident. The problem for petitioner is that neither of the pertinent statutes, § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) and § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), contain any language to this effect, and the statute that petitioner cites in support of this argument, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C), simply was not applied to him in the instant proceedings.

         3. Due Process Violations. Although petitioner claims that the immigration proceedings were plagued by due process violations, he has not even attempted to show how such violations prejudiced him -- i.e., how, in the absence of the claimed errors, the result of the removal proceeding would have been different. See Ibe v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 142, 144 (1st Cir. 2005) (holding that prejudice is “an essential requirement of a due process claim” in the immigration context). These claims therefore are meritless. Finally, we do not consider petitioner’s challenge to the conditions of his detention pending the completion of the removal proceedings because a petition for review, filed under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, is not the proper vehicle for such a challenge. See Ochieng v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 1110, 1115 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding that a court of appeals, in a proceeding under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, is not the “appropriate forum” in which to bring, the first instance, a challenge to detention).

         The petition for review therefore is denied.

[texasmom]

texasmom ... I missed ya yesterday.

 

I bumped Natalee forward for you but ... I see that you popped in and bumped her forward again.

I again left "our" little laughing girl in the previous thread.  I am sooo neglectful

Janet

Thanks for missing me Janet, just needed a little break.  All better now.

Hope you have a great weekend with the grandkids!

Here you go!   

[texasmom]

TxMom

What do you think of this man as a match for the one in the white shirt we were trying to ID recently?

They do favor each other, but not the same IMO. 

[texasmom]

I mean the one speaking into the microphone, not the one marked in the box.

Maybe Bastibro knows who it is since he is fond of that gathering and uses it as his avatar.

I think that that is Antonio Carlo.

Yes, I believe it is too. 

[Tamikosmom]

texasmom ... I missed ya yesterday.

 

I bumped Natalee forward for you but ... I see that you popped in and bumped her forward again.

I again left "our" little laughing girl in the previous thread.  I am sooo neglectful

Janet

Thanks for missing me Janet, just needed a little break.  All better now.

Hope you have a great weekend with the grandkids!

Here you go!   

texasmom is back and ... "our" little girl is safe.  All is well in Tamikosmom's world.

Hugs

Janet

[Rob]

TxMom

What do you think of this man as a match for the one in the white shirt we were trying to ID recently?

They do favor each other, but not the same IMO. 

TxMoM - that's my pic from when I was trying to figure out who MF was. We found out that guy in the box is Richie Kock. The other guy is David Kock or Antonio Carlo - I think it's Carlo.

[Keepthefaith]

attack the facts and figures, not me 

Why should we bother to attack the facts and figures you have posted?

They are utter hogwash.

No they are not.

None of the Crap Johan555 posted were facts..PERIOD..

What Kyle Kingman posted were facts..

A continued attempt to minimize Kyle Kingman and his credentials..

[Magnolia]

GOOD MORNING MONKEYS!!

Well ... eldest son just called and ... he, DIL and 2 1/2 year old grandson are just boardING the ferry for the two hour ride from Vancouver Island to the mainland.  They are staying with us for the weekend as there is a family gathering later today.

I am so excited.  I have not held that little guy in my arms for over a month.  At this moment Papa is setting up the Thomas Train table.

 

Janet
7:50 AM

I love that Cheapo is setting up the train.  It is so important to spark those memories at that age.
I went to great extents when my grandchildren were little ones.

[Anna]

Off to work in the yard and on the new horses.

Janet gets to have ALL the fun!


 

[texasmom]

TxMom

What do you think of this man as a match for the one in the white shirt we were trying to ID recently?

They do favor each other, but not the same IMO. 

TxMoM - that's my pic from when I was trying to figure out who MF was. We found out that guy in the box is Richie Kock. The other guy is David Kock or Antonio Carlo - I think it's Carlo.

Thanks Rob.  Yes I remember well when we found out who Richie was...you wouldn't believe the things I'd been told about who that possibly was by CLW.    

[Anna]

TxMom

What do you think of this man as a match for the one in the white shirt we were trying to ID recently?

They do favor each other, but not the same IMO. 

TxMoM - that's my pic from when I was trying to figure out who MF was. We found out that guy in the box is Richie Kock. The other guy is David Kock or Antonio Carlo - I think it's Carlo.

So hard to tell from just photos but seems there are about half a dozen who could pass for each other.

Or maybe I have looked at the same faces so long they are all beginning to look alike.

 

[texasmom]

TxMom

What do you think of this man as a match for the one in the white shirt we were trying to ID recently?

They do favor each other, but not the same IMO. 

TxMoM - that's my pic from when I was trying to figure out who MF was. We found out that guy in the box is Richie Kock. The other guy is David Kock or Antonio Carlo - I think it's Carlo.

So hard to tell from just photos but seems there are about half a dozen who could pass for each other.

Or maybe I have looked at the same faces so long they are all beginning to look alike.

 

I know what you mean Anna!   

[Tamikosmom]

GOOD MORNING MONKEYS!!

Well ... eldest son just called and ... he, DIL and 2 1/2 year old grandson are just boardING the ferry for the two hour ride from Vancouver Island to the mainland.  They are staying with us for the weekend as there is a family gathering later today.

I am so excited.  I have not held that little guy in my arms for over a month.  At this moment Papa is setting up the Thomas Train table.

 

Janet
7:50 AM

I love that Cheapo is setting up the train.  It is so important to spark those memories at that age.
I went to great extents when my grandchildren were little ones.

Magnolia

Lots of memories.  Time goes by so quickly.

Thomas Train has been around for nine years ... since eldest grandson turned 2 years old.  We have all the "videos" but will have to think about trading them in for DVD's.

The Thomas Train journey ... the beginning.  Hubby and I along with grandson were in small a toy store that had a table set up with Thomas Train cars ... tracks ... bridges ... the whole works.  Grandson had a great time playing but when it was time to leave ... he picked up a starter set box that was one of many stacked beside the table.  We told him "no" because it costs lots of money.  This little guy put down the box and ... points to my purse and ... then points to Papa's back pocket where his wallet is kept.

Long story short.  We came home with the starter set.  Papa built the table and ... the starter set has been added to over the years and ... enjoyed by each of the grandkids.  However ... eldest grandson always reminded his siblings that the trains are his ... all his.

 

Janet

[Artcolley]

TxMom

What do you think of this man as a match for the one in the white shirt we were trying to ID recently?

They do favor each other, but not the same IMO. 

TxMoM - that's my pic from when I was trying to figure out who MF was. We found out that guy in the box is Richie Kock. The other guy is David Kock or Antonio Carlo - I think it's Carlo.

So hard to tell from just photos but seems there are about half a dozen who could pass for each other.

Or maybe I have looked at the same faces so long they are all beginning to look alike.

 

'Cause they're probably all related 

[texasmom]

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=07-2457U.01A


United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 07-2457

EDWARDO A.A. MATHEW,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF

THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before

 Lynch, Chief Judge,

Torruella and Boudin, Circuit Judges.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Edwardo Alexandro Mathew on brief pro se.

    Lauren E. Fascett, Trial Attorney, Civil Division, Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division and David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, on brief for respondent.

 

October 29, 2008
  


         Per Curiam. Petitioner Edwardo Alexandro Mathew was ordered removed, under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), on the ground that he had been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude and thus was an inadmissible alien. After carefully reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the order of removal essentially for the reasons given by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). We add only the following comments:

         1. Petitioner’s Criminal Records. As for the Apostille, 8 C.F.R. § 1287.6 is not the exclusive method for authenticating a document. See Yongo v. INS, 355 F.3d 27, 31 (1st Cir. 2004). Rather, authentication is a “flexible” doctrine and “requires nothing more than proof that a document or thing is what it purports to be.” Id. at 30. Here, since there is no question that the documents certified by the Apostille are anything other than copies of petitioner’s Aruban criminal record, it is plain that this record was admissible for the purposes of establishing petitioner’s conviction.
        
          Petitioner next claims that there were translation errors in this record. However, in determining whether a particular offense qualifies as a crime of moral turpitude, “[t]he focus . . . is on the inherent nature of the crime of conviction, as opposed to the particular circumstances of the actual crime committed.” Nguyen v. Reno, 211 F.3d 692, 695 (1st Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). Thus, it is the definition contained in the applicable criminal statute that is the controlling factor. Maghsoudi v. INS, 181 F.3d 8, 14 (1st Cir. 1999).

         Here, it is plain that at least one of petitioner’s convictions, the one under Art. 315, qualifies as a crime of moral turpitude. That is, a conviction under this article requires both that the defendant intended to cause, and actually did cause, serious physical harm. See Nguyen, 211 F.3d at 695 (it is a crime of moral turpitude “to cause serious injury intentionally to another person”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted; emphasis added). Thus, petitioner was properly treated as an arriving alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) and properly found inadmissible under § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).
      
         2. The Second Charge. Petitioner next argues that the BIA could not remove him on the basis of having been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude without first having determined that he had fraudulently concealed this conviction in order to obtain his adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident. The problem for petitioner is that neither of the pertinent statutes, § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) and § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), contain any language to this effect, and the statute that petitioner cites in support of this argument, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C), simply was not applied to him in the instant proceedings.

         3. Due Process Violations. Although petitioner claims that the immigration proceedings were plagued by due process violations, he has not even attempted to show how such violations prejudiced him -- i.e., how, in the absence of the claimed errors, the result of the removal proceeding would have been different. See Ibe v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 142, 144 (1st Cir. 2005) (holding that prejudice is “an essential requirement of a due process claim” in the immigration context). These claims therefore are meritless. Finally, we do not consider petitioner’s challenge to the conditions of his detention pending the completion of the removal proceedings because a petition for review, filed under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, is not the proper vehicle for such a challenge. See Ochieng v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 1110, 1115 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding that a court of appeals, in a proceeding under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, is not the “appropriate forum” in which to bring, the first instance, a challenge to detention).

         The petition for review therefore is denied.

I interpret the above to indicate that Alex Mathew was deported from the U.S.

Anyone else understand it to read....or know differently?  TIA

[Artcolley]

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=07-2457U.01A


United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 07-2457

EDWARDO A.A. MATHEW,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF

THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before

 Lynch, Chief Judge,

Torruella and Boudin, Circuit Judges.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Edwardo Alexandro Mathew on brief pro se.

    Lauren E. Fascett, Trial Attorney, Civil Division, Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division and David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, on brief for respondent.

 

October 29, 2008
  


         Per Curiam. Petitioner Edwardo Alexandro Mathew was ordered removed, under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), on the ground that he had been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude and thus was an inadmissible alien. After carefully reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the order of removal essentially for the reasons given by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). We add only the following comments:

         1. Petitioner’s Criminal Records. As for the Apostille, 8 C.F.R. § 1287.6 is not the exclusive method for authenticating a document. See Yongo v. INS, 355 F.3d 27, 31 (1st Cir. 2004). Rather, authentication is a “flexible” doctrine and “requires nothing more than proof that a document or thing is what it purports to be.” Id. at 30. Here, since there is no question that the documents certified by the Apostille are anything other than copies of petitioner’s Aruban criminal record, it is plain that this record was admissible for the purposes of establishing petitioner’s conviction.
        
          Petitioner next claims that there were translation errors in this record. However, in determining whether a particular offense qualifies as a crime of moral turpitude, “[t]he focus . . . is on the inherent nature of the crime of conviction, as opposed to the particular circumstances of the actual crime committed.” Nguyen v. Reno, 211 F.3d 692, 695 (1st Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). Thus, it is the definition contained in the applicable criminal statute that is the controlling factor. Maghsoudi v. INS, 181 F.3d 8, 14 (1st Cir. 1999).

         Here, it is plain that at least one of petitioner’s convictions, the one under Art. 315, qualifies as a crime of moral turpitude. That is, a conviction under this article requires both that the defendant intended to cause, and actually did cause, serious physical harm. See Nguyen, 211 F.3d at 695 (it is a crime of moral turpitude “to cause serious injury intentionally to another person”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted; emphasis added). Thus, petitioner was properly treated as an arriving alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) and properly found inadmissible under § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).
      
         2. The Second Charge. Petitioner next argues that the BIA could not remove him on the basis of having been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude without first having determined that he had fraudulently concealed this conviction in order to obtain his adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident. The problem for petitioner is that neither of the pertinent statutes, § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) and § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), contain any language to this effect, and the statute that petitioner cites in support of this argument, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C), simply was not applied to him in the instant proceedings.

         3. Due Process Violations. Although petitioner claims that the immigration proceedings were plagued by due process violations, he has not even attempted to show how such violations prejudiced him -- i.e., how, in the absence of the claimed errors, the result of the removal proceeding would have been different. See Ibe v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 142, 144 (1st Cir. 2005) (holding that prejudice is “an essential requirement of a due process claim” in the immigration context). These claims therefore are meritless. Finally, we do not consider petitioner’s challenge to the conditions of his detention pending the completion of the removal proceedings because a petition for review, filed under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, is not the proper vehicle for such a challenge. See Ochieng v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 1110, 1115 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding that a court of appeals, in a proceeding under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, is not the “appropriate forum” in which to bring, the first instance, a challenge to detention).

         The petition for review therefore is denied.

I interpret the above to indicate that Alex Mathew was deported from the U.S.

Anyone else understand it to read....or know differently?  TIA

I interpret it the same way . It appears he appealed the initial ruling and lost the appeal and was deported.
However, I am only on my second cup of coffee, so I could be wrong 

[Magnolia]

GOOD MORNING MONKEYS!!

Well ... eldest son just called and ... he, DIL and 2 1/2 year old grandson are just boardING the ferry for the two hour ride from Vancouver Island to the mainland.  They are staying with us for the weekend as there is a family gathering later today.

I am so excited.  I have not held that little guy in my arms for over a month.  At this moment Papa is setting up the Thomas Train table.

 

Janet
7:50 AM

I love that Cheapo is setting up the train.  It is so important to spark those memories at that age.
I went to great extents when my grandchildren were little ones.

Magnolia

Lots of memories.  Time goes by so quickly.

Thomas Train has been around for nine years ... since eldest grandson turned 2 years old.  We have all the "videos" but will have to think about trading them in for DVD's.

The Thomas Train journey ... the beginning.  Hubby and I along with grandson were in small a toy store that had a table set up with Thomas Train cars ... tracks ... bridges ... the whole works.  Grandson had a great time playing but when it was time to leave ... he picked up a starter set box that was one of many stacked beside the table.  We told him "no" because it costs lots of money.  This little guy put down the box and ... points to my purse and ... then points to Papa's back pocket where his wallet is kept.

Long story short.  We came home with the starter set.  Papa built the table and ... the starter set has been added to over the years and ... enjoyed by each of the grandkids.  However ... eldest grandson always reminded his siblings that the trains are his ... all his.

 

Janet

Good for you and Cheapo!   That is why my grandchildren still refer to me as "the Good Granny"
even to DIL's mother, who is their other granny.