U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals

Office of the Clerk

5107 Leesburg Pilce, Suite 2000

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Dobrin,Vicky J OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - SEA
Dobrin & Han, PC 1000 Second Avenue,Suite 2900
705 Second Ave, Suite 610 Seattle,WA 98104
Seattle,WA 98104

Name:BOUNTHONG,AISEN A 040-408-560

Date of this notice: 8/15/2017

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.

Sincerely,

Cynthia L. Crosby
Deputy Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members:
Guendelsberger, John

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index

Cite as: Ai Sen Bounthong, A040 408 560 (BIA Aug. 15, 2017)
, U.S. Department of Justice Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Executive Office for Immigration Review

. Falls Church, Virginia 22041

' File: A040 408 560 - Monroe, WA Date:

AUG 1 5 2017
In re: Ai Sen BOUNTHONG a.k.a. Aisen Bounthong

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS

MOTION

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Vicky J. Dobrin, Esquire

APPLICATION: Reopening; termination

This case was last before the Board on March 18, 1997, when we dismissed the respondent's
appeal from the Immigration Judge's January 31, 1996, decision finding the respondent deportable
as charged and denying his applications for relief. The respondent has filed a motion to reopen
and terminate based, in part, on a Governor's pardon of his state assault conviction (Motion to
Reopen at 2, 9, 13-14; Exh. F). The respondent essentially contends that he is no longer deportable
as charged and, alternatively, seeks the opportunity to apply for adjustment of status in conjunction
with a waiver under section 2 l 2(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. l l 82(h).
The record before us does not contain a brief in opposition from the Department of Homeland
Security (OHS). The motion to reopen will be granted and the record will be remanded to the
Immigration Judge for further proceedings. The motion to terminate will be denied.

On May 10, 1991, the respondent was convicted in the Superior Court of Washington for King
County for (1) reckless endangerment in the first degree in violation of WASH. REV. CODE
9A.36.045, and (2) assault in the first degree in violation of WASH. REV. CODE 9A.36.011
(U at 1-2).
Based on these convictions, the Immigration Judge found the respondent deportable as
having been convicted of an aggravated felony under former section 24l(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act,
8 U.S.C. 125l(a)(2)(A)(iii); and a firearms offense under former section 241(a)(2)(C) of the Act,
8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)(C); and ineligible for relief from deportation.

In support of the motion to reopen the respondent has submitted evidence that on June 15,
2016, the Governor of Washington granted the respondent a full and unconditional pardon
regarding his conviction for assault in the first degree under WASH. REV. CODE 9A.36.0ll,
which served as the basis for his aggravated felony charge in the proceedings below (Motion to
Reopen, Exh. F). This full and unconditional pardon from the Governor potentially waives the
respondent's aggravated felony ground of deportability. See Section 237(a)(2)(A)(vi) of the Act,
8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(vi).1 The respondent has also submitted evidence regarding his character
and ties to the community, his efforts of self-improvement, the potential hardship to his family,
and an approved visa petition (Form I-130) filed on his behalf by his United States citizen wife
(Motion to Reopen, Exhs. A-B, G-P, T-U).

1 At the time of the respondent's deportation, former section 241(a)(2)(A)(iv) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
1251(a)(2)(A)(iv), also provided for a waiver of an aggravated felony conviction based on a full
and unconditional pardon by the Governor of a state.

Cite as: Ai Sen Bounthong, A040 408 560 (BIA Aug. 15, 2017)
,. . r

A040 408 560

Considering the totality of circwnstances presented in the respondent's motion, which has not
been opposed by DHS, we will exercise our sua sponte authority to reopen these proceedings and
remand for further proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(a); Matter of J-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 976
(BIA 1997). On remand, the Immigration Judge should consider whether the respondent is still
deportable under former section 24l(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act as an aggravated felon in light of the

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

evidence of the Governor's pardon. The Immigration Jude should also consider the respondent's
firearm ground of deportability under former section 24 l (a)(2)(C) of the Act in light of recent
developments in the law, particularly the antique firearms exception. See, e.g., Medinal-Lara v.

Holder, 771 F.3d 1106, 1115-18 (9th Cir. 2014); and, if necessary, the respondent's eligibility for
adjustment of status or any other relief from removal. Finally, the record will be remanded to
allow the parties to present further evidence and arguments regarding the matters at issue in this
case. Accordingly, the following orders are entered.

ORDER: The motion to reopen is granted.

FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for proceedings
consient with the foregoing decision, and for the entry of a new decision.

FURTHER ORDER: The motion to terminate is denied.2

2 Termination is not appropriate as the Immigration Judge will need to evaluate and weigh the
evidence, including any additional evidence submitted during the reopened proceedings.

Cite as: Ai Sen Bounthong, A040 408 560 (BIA Aug. 15, 2017)