Lau v. United States Department of Justice
Filing
4
OPINION on Dismissal. (Signed by Judge Lynn N. Hughes) Parties notified. (ghassan, )
UNmD STATES DISTRICT COURT
Chan Wing Lau,
Plaintiff,
'l!ersus
United States Department ofJustice, et aI.,
Defendants.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action H'1 3'40
Opinion on Dismissal
Introduction.
1.
After being in the country without permission for
I I
years, an alien has appealed the
immigration agency's denial of bond, denial of his application for asylum, and order for
deportation. His claims will be dismissed.
Background.
2.
Chan Wing Lau entered the United States of America in September of 1997 with a visa
from Hong Kong. In 1999, he changed his visa, extending his ability to stay until] anuary of
2002.
He has remained in the country without permission.
In July of 20 I 0, Lau was convicted of forgeries in Fort Bend County and Harris County.
While he was serving his sentence, Immigration and Customs Enforcement interviewed him
and took him into custody as a deportable alien.
That August, a hearing officer at the immigration court ruled that he could be deported.
He asked to leave voluntarily, and the officer allowed it. He was to leave the country by October
5 th
with a bond of $2,000. He tried to post the bond, but he did not pay by the deadline for an
unclear reason. After the hearing, he appealed the order of deportation because the officer did
not tell him that he could apply for asylum and withholding of removal.
In February of 20II, the Board ofImmigrationAppeals remanded the case to give him
an opportunity to apply for asylum. He posted a delivery bond of $5,000 inJuly of 20II and
was released. The agency set the hearing on his application for asylum for July of 2013.
In June of 20 12, he was arrested for fraud in Harris County. Immigration then took him
into custody. At a hearing in August, the officer told him that he could not be released on bond
because he had two convictions for crimes of moral turpitude: the forgeries in 2010. The officer
also reset his asylum hearing for November.
At the end of August, he pleaded guilty to fraud.
In November, he asked the officer to recuse himself. Lau argued that the officer was
biased because he had denied bond. The officer explained that he was not eligible for bond
because of his convictions. Lau admitted that he was convicted of forgery in Harris County and
was sentenced to
30
days' confinement, but he claimed that he pleaded guilty to a crime that
he did not commit. He also claimed that he was not convicted in Fort Bend County. The officer
denied the motion to recuse and reset the asylum hearing to February of 201 3, because Lau was
not prepared.
In January of 2013, Lau filed a motion to recuse the hearing officer in this court. The
court denied it. In February, the officer denied his application for withholding of removal.
Because his fear of returning to Hong Kong stemmed from events before 1999, his application
for asylum was untimely, and he could not show changed circumstances that justified his
tardiness. The officer ordered him to be deported. Lau reserved his right to appeal to the agency,
but this court does not know if he did.
Since April, Lau has filed four more petitions in this court, complaining that the officer
was biased, did not recuse, did not give him bond, ignored his evidence, and erred in ordering
his deportation. He seeks to overturn the order of removal, be released on bond, and be
classified as a lawful permanent resident. He has also asked that the agency give him his driver's
license and expired passport from Hong Kong.
3.
Bias.
Nothing in the documents he has submitted shows that the hearing officer was biased
towards Lau. An adverse ruling is not prejudice, bias, hostility, malice, or anything other than
a decision. Although he denied one of his convictions in his immigration hearings, he has
admitted in his pleadings to this court that he pleaded guilty to forgery in Fort Bend County
and Harris County.I
He complains that the officer was biased because he denied bond. It is unclear why the
agency allowed him to post a bond in 2010 and 2011; it should not have. The government may
have discovered the extent of his crimes after his arrest for fraud, to which he has also pleaded
guilty.2 The law does not allow the agency to released him on bond because he has two
convictions of moral turpitude. 3 The officer cannot change the law.
Lau says that he did not commit the crimes; that does not change the record of his
convictions. He cannot plead guilty in two proceedings and then deny that he did the crimes.
He was convicted and cannot be released
He has nothing else to show that the officer was arbitrary. The excerpts that he has
given the court show that the officer continued the asylum hearing to give him more time to
prepare and considered his evidence of threats in Hong Kong.
4.
Arylum.
Because Lau has not shown that he appealed the denial of his application to the agency
and exhausted his administrative remedies, he may not sue here. 4
Even if he had appealed and lost, the officer did not err in denying the application for
asylum and withholding.
The law requires that his application for asylum be within one year of his arrival or its
tardiness be excused by changed circumstances. 5 He has been in the country for at least 14
years without applying for asylum. He knew of the events underlying his application for that
entire time.
I State
2010); State
'11.
Lau, No. 09-DRC-53503 (434th Dist. Ct., Fort Bend County, Tex. July 1,
Lau, No. 122836301010-3 (351st Dist. Ct., Harris County, Tex. July 16,
'11.
2010).
2 State v. Lau, No. 1835416010I0-2 (lIth Dist. Ct., Harris County, Tex. August
24,2012).
38 USc. § 1226(c)(1) (2012).
58 U.S.c. § II5 8 (a) (B) &- (a) (D).
The application was untimely, and he has not shown a new development that justifies his late
filing.
He has also not shown facts that support withholding of deportation because of
persecution or torture. He says that he was attacked because he refused to bribe officials in
China. He has not shown that his life would be threatened because of a protected category or
that he would be tortured. 6
Lau has no need for a state driver's license. The government must return his passport.
5.
Conclusion.
Chan Wing Lau may not sue in this court because he has not shown that he exhausted
his remedies with the agency. Even if he could sue here, he has not described facts that are
recognized as claims at law. He could not receive bond, his application for asylum is too late,
and he has not shown facts that support withholding of his deportation. More than substantial
evidence supports every decision by the Immigration Service. His claims will be dismissed.
Signed on August~, 2013, at Houston, Texas.
~
~-----------~-
Lynn N. Hughes
United States DistrictJudge
68 U.s.c. § I231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16-.17 (2012).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?