Cite as
29 I&N Dec. 339 (BIA 2025) Interim Decision #4145
Matter of Chong Sik KIM, Respondent
Decided by Board October 9, 2025 1
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
The Immigration Judge erred in determining that the respondent, who engaged in
systemic criminal fraud for decades, warranted a favorable exercise of discretion for
purposes of cancellation of removal based on his recent expressed remorse and
rehabilitative efforts while in prison.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Pro se
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Thelma Gonzalez, Assistant
Chief Counsel
BEFORE: Board Panel: GOODWIN and VOLKERT, Appellate Immigration Judges;
MCCLOSKEY, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge.
MCCLOSKEY, Appellate Immigration Judge:
The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) appeals from the
decision of the Immigration Judge dated April 23, 2025, granting the
respondent’s application for cancellation of removal for certain lawful
permanent residents under section 240A(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) (2024). The respondent, a
native and citizen of South Korea, opposes the appeal. The appeal will be
sustained.
The respondent came to the United States in 1979 at age 10 and became
a lawful permanent resident that same year. In the late 1990s, he developed
a gambling addiction, and in the early 2000s he started stealing to fuel it.
Over the next two decades, the respondent routinely committed fraud and
theft throughout the greater Los Angeles region. His notoriety was such that
one of his most recent victims called police after recognizing him from a
2020 NBC news media report identifying him as the suspect in multiple
1
Pursuant to Order No. 6523-2025, dated December 8, 2025, the Attorney General
designated the Board’s decision in Matter of Kim (BIA Oct. 9, 2025), as precedent in all
proceedings involving the same issue or issues. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(g)(3) (2025).
Editorial changes have been made consistent with the designation of the case as a
precedent.
page
339
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 339 (BIA 2025) Interim Decision #4145
scams over the last 14 years. His favored method was to falsely represent
himself as a licensed contractor, convince victims to pay a deposit for home
improvement work, and then cease contact with the victims and abscond with
their money. At least once, he sent a fraudulent refund check to a victim in
an attempt to buy time. In addition to defrauding customers, he also stole at
least $30,000 from his wife, resulting in a divorce. He was arrested numerous
times in relation to his ongoing schemes and repeatedly incarcerated to no
effect on his behavior. He did not file any income taxes for 30 years.
His most recent arrest occurred in 2022, and he was charged with grand
theft and burglary. On May 1, 2023, a probation officer prepared a
pre-conviction report for the respondent. The officer’s evaluation concluded:
The defendant is 53 years old with an extensive prior record. He has been convicted
of eight misdemeanors and seven felonies. His convictions include burglary, grand
theft, contracting without a license, driving with a suspended license, and unlawful
advertising. He has been placed on probation, served time in county jail and state
prison but continues to participate in illegal activities. The defendant behaves as if
the rules and laws of society do not apply to him.
The respondent was convicted and sentenced to 4 years in prison.
Before the Immigration Judge, the respondent testified that his most
recent incarceration was a wake-up call, and he found religion and received
rehabilitative care for his gambling addiction. The Immigration Judge
weighed the respondent’s criminal history against his long residence in the
United States, his lack of familiarity with South Korea due to his long
residence in the United States from childhood, his three adult United States
citizen children who he maintains close ties with and whom supported him
in his immigration proceedings, some positive history of employment, and
his graduation from high school. The Immigration Judge also found that the
respondent persuasively testified to his sincere remorse and acceptance of
responsibility for his crimes, and that he had completed rehabilitative
programs while in prison.
Ultimately, the Immigration Judge determined that the respondent
deserved a favorable exercise of discretion, a determination that we review
de novo. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (2025). In exercising discretion, we
“must balance the adverse factors evidencing the alien’s undesirability as a
permanent resident with the social and humane considerations presented in
his (or her) behalf to determine whether the granting of . . . relief appears in
the best interest of this country.” Matter of C-V-T-,
22 I&N Dec. 7, 11
(BIA 1998) (quoting Matter of Marin,
16 I&N Dec. 581, 584–85
(BIA 1978)).
Page
340
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 339 (BIA 2025) Interim Decision #4145
On our de novo review, the respondent has not established that he
deserves a favorable exercise of discretion. We agree with DHS that the
record shows limited positive equities that do not outweigh his severe and
significant criminal history. The respondent has shown no meaningful period
of time since the early 2000s when he was not systematically defrauding
members of his community, the government, and/or his own family. His
extensive and extreme course of criminal fraud continued unabated despite
repeated interventions by the criminal justice system, including
incarcerations. While the Immigration Judge was persuaded by the
respondent’s testimony that this most recent incarceration has truly
rehabilitated him, as DHS notes, none of his previous incarcerations or
rehabilitative efforts succeeded, and he did not present any specific plan for
employment, support, or maintaining recovery upon release. Even if the
respondent, while incarcerated, truly feels remorse for his crimes and
believes that he is a changed man, we have no confidence that the respondent
will not resume his longstanding pattern of criminality after release.
We acknowledge that the respondent has been in this country since he
came as a child in 1979. But the positive equity of his long residence is
undercut by the fact that he has spent the better part of his adult life engaged
in systematic criminal fraud. His relationships with his adult children
currently occur primarily over the telephone, and that can continue from
South Korea. Balancing all positive and negative factors, we determine that
relief does not appear in the best interest of the United States. See Matter of
C-V-T-, 22 I&N Dec. at 11. In our exercise of discretion, we will deny the
respondent’s application for cancellation of removal.
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.
FURTHER ORDER: The Immigration Judge’s April 23, 2025,
decision granting the respondent’s application for cancellation of removal is
vacated.
FURTHER ORDER: The respondent’s application for cancellation of
removal is denied in the exercise of discretion.
FURTHER ORDER: The respondent is ordered removed to South
Korea.
NOTICE: If a respondent is subject to a final order of removal and
willfully fails or refuses to depart from the United States pursuant to the
order, to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents
necessary to depart the United States, or to present himself or herself at the
Page
341
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 339 (BIA 2025) Interim Decision #4145
time and place required for removal by DHS, or conspires to or takes any
action designed to prevent or hamper the respondent’s departure pursuant to
the order of removal, the respondent shall be subject to a civil monetary
penalty of up to $998 for each day the respondent is in violation. See INA
§ 274D, 8 U.S.C. § 1324d (2024);
8 C.F.R. § 280.53(b)(14) (2025).
Page
342
