Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/102766779/Final-Closure-of-EMRC
Timestamp: 2017-02-28 13:01:32
Document Index: 192995818

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 1', '§ 204', '§ 204', '§ 292', '§ 204', '§ 103', '§ 204', '§ 204', '§ 204', '§ 204', '§ 204', '§ 204', '§ 204', '§ 204']

Final Closure of EMRC | Bankruptcy
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoin/ V.S. Department or Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 Washington, DC 20529-2090 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services TV,LLC AIKIA EL MONTE REGIONAL CENTER ATTN: BIN LING LEI 3629 SANTA ANITA AYE., SUITE 228 EL MONTE, CA 91731 DATE: JUl 2 3 2012 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER FILE: RCW 1031910138 INRE: Applicant: EL MONTE REGIONAL CENTER APPLICATION: Proposal for Designation as a Regional Center Pursuant to Section 61O(c) of the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-121,106 Stat. 1874 (1992). ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: STEYEQI LAW OFFICES OF STEVE QI & ASSOCIATES 388 E. VALLEY BL YD., SUITE 200 ALHAMBRA, CA 91801 INSTRUCTIONS: Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in accordance with the instructions on Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. Thank you, r ~ ~ Perry Rhew Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.u!lci!l.gov ;; --...~ - - -
RCW 1031910138 Page 2 DISCUSSION: The Chief, Service Center Operations, approved the proposal for designation as a regional center and a subsequent amendment request. The Director, California Service Center, issued a notice of intent to terminate and subsequently terminated the applicant's designation as a regional center. The matter is now befure the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. On June 5, 2008, the applicant, TV, LLC, sought designation as the "EI Monte Regional Center" pursuant to section 61O(c) of the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 102-395, 106 Stat. 1874 (1992), as amendect by section 116 of Pub. L. No. 105-119, 111 Stat. 2440 (1997); section 402 of Pub. L. No. 106-396, 114 Stat. 1637 (2000) and section 11037 ofPub. L. No. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758 (2002). At the outset it is necessary to identifY the affected party in this matter. TV, LLC filed the initial claiming on page 2 of the Executive Summary that the "El Monte Regional Center will establish a number ofLLCs ... that will serve as the investment entities" and that LLC will act as the President and Managing Member of all LLCs." The chief addressed the July 25, 2008 approval notice to TV, LLC as the applicant, designating the regional center as the "EI Monte Regional Center." In 201 0, the applicant submitted a report on the El Monte Incubator, LP project, stating on page 6, that the EI Monte Regional Center, LLC (EMRC, LLC) "was formed to work with TV, LLC as a co­
General Partner." The record contains no evidence that "EI Monte Regional Center" existed as an organized or incorporated entity at the time of filing.· For purposes ofthis decision, "the applicant" in this decision refers to TV, LLC despite the regional center's designation as the "El Monte Regional Center." The director terminated the applicant's designation after determining that the applicant no longer served the purpose ofpromoting economic growth. The applicant filed the instant appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. Specifically, the AAO finds that the director incorrectly rejected the G-28, Notice of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative, that Bin Ling Lei signed on August 30, 2011. Regarding the director's decision not to grant an extension oftime to respond to the notice of intent to terminate, there is no legal authority that would require or even allow the director to provide such an extensioIl: Since the applicant failed to respond within the required time, USCIS will not consider new evidence on appeal. Ultimately, based on continuing litigation, including bankruptcy proceedings and a lawsuit against the City of EI Monte, the AAO will affirm the director's finding that the applicant has not demonstrated that it is still in a position to promote economic growth. I The organizers of EMRC, LLC filed with the State of California on August 22, 2008, after TV, LLC filed the regional center proposal seeking designation as the "El Monte Regional Center" and after the director approved the proposal. See http://kepler.sos.ca.gov!cbs.aspx, accessed January 17,2012 and incorporated into the record of proceeding. ;:;;; ;;: r "[ RCW 1031910138 Page 3 I. THE LAW Section 203(b)(5) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1 1 53(b)(5), as amended by Pub. L. No. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758 (2002), provides classification to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose ofengaging in a new commercial enterprise in which the alien has invested or is actively investing the requisite amount of capital and which will benefit the United States economy and created full-time employment for no fewer than 10 qualified workers. Section 610 ofthe Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1993 (Public Law), as amended, provides for a specific number of visas to implement a pilot program involving regional centers in the United States. Subparagraph (a) ofthis section prOVides for designation of regional centers based on "a general proposal for the promotion of economic growth, including increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, or increased domestic capital investment." A regional center applicant must explain how the regional center "shall have jurisdiction over a limited geographic area, which shall be described in the proposal and consistent with the purpose of concentrating pooled investment in defined economic zones." Subparagraph (c) provides that aliens admitted under the pilot program may rely on "reasonable methodologies for determining the number of jobs created by the pilot program, including such jobs which are estimated to have been created indirectly through revenues generated from increased exports, improved regional productivity, job creation, or increased domestic capital investment resulting from the pilot program." The regulation at 8 c.P.R. § 204.6(m)(3) addresses requirements for regional center proposals, including a clear description of how the regional center will promote economic growth and verifiable detail on how jobs will be created indirectly. Id. at (ii), (iv). The proposal must also provide a detailed statement regarding the amount and source of funds. /d. at (iii). Applicants must support proposals with economically or statistically valid forecasting tools. Id. at (v). To ensure that regional centers continue to meet the requirements of the Public Law, legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (now USCIS) issued an implementing regulation providing legacy INS with the authority to terminate the participation ofa regional center "should it fail to satisfY these requiremeI\ts." 58 Ped. Reg. 44606, 44607 (Aug. 24, 1993). Specifically, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.6(m)(6) relates to the termination of regional center status and provides, in pertinent part: USCIS will issue a notice of intent to terminate the participation of a regional center in the pilot program ... upon a determination that the regional center no longer serves the purpose of promoting economic growth, including increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment. The notice of intent to terminate shall be made upon notice to the regional center and shall set forth the reasons for termination. The regional center must be provided 30 days from receipt of the notice of intent to terminate to offer evidence in opposition to the ground or grounds alleged in the notice of intent to terminate. If USCIS determines that the regional center's participation in the Pilot ::0:::
I ; RCW 1031910138 Page 4 Program should be terminated, USCIS shall notify the regional center of the decision and of the reasons for termination. As provided in 8 CFR 103.3, the regional center may appeal the decision to USCIS within 30 days after the service of notice. The potential reasons fur the termination of a regional center extend beyond inactivity on the part of a regional center. 75 Fed. Reg. 58962, 58980 (Sep. 24, 201 0). II. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY The original proposal descnbes the regional center's geographic area as the City of EI Monte, Califurnia In section 1.5-4 of the original submission, the applicant advised that the City ofEI Monte "had granted-TV, LLC the exclusive right to negotiate fur the redevelopment ofthe Transit Village site" and that the applicant and city were negotiating a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). The initial filing included a January I, 2008, Confidential Offering Memorandum fur TV Hotel Investors, LLC pertaining to the development of a hotel at 3629 Santa Anita Avenue in EI Monte, Califurnia
2 The Confidential Offering Memorandum contains the following notable provisions: • Section V{t) references a memorandum ofunderstanding with the City ofEI Monte. • Section VI (page 10) states that TV, LLC had "acquired" 3629 Santa Anita Avenue, which the regional center would rehabilitate into a hotel with a $2.45 million grant from the Economic Development Agency (EDA) ofthe U.S. Department ofCommerce. • Section IX{b) indicates that the site has mUltiple owners, including the City ofEI Monte and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority. Accordingly, any development would require "concurrence of all owners and in the case of the governmental entities, compliance with various legal rectories." The same section states: "the City has authorized the entry of a formal Development and Disposition Agreement (DDA) with TV, LLC covering the disposition of City property within the Site and the necessary City actions to facilitate acquisition by TV, LLC of portions of the Site under Caltrans and MTA ownership." Thus, the Memorandum indicated that the DDA will facilitate at least some ofthe government concurrences discussion in this same section On July 25,2008, the Chief of Service Center Operations, a component office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approved the proposal. On July 31, 2008, the applicant submitted additional documentation regarding the unemployment rate in the geographic area covered by the regional center. On September 9, 2008, Service Center Operations issued an amended approval notice. The applicant subsequently submitted annual reports dated September 8, 2009 and September 24, 20 I O. In the 2009 annual report, the applicant identified a single investor and in the 20 I 0 report the applicant identified a second investor. The record contains an April 2009 Business Plan for EI Monte Incubator, 2 There is no record of TV Hotel Investors, LLC with the California Secretary of State pursuant to a search at http://kepler.sos.ca.gov, accessed July 20, 2012. Copy ofsearch incorporated into the record of proceeding. I : ;;;;; RCW 1031910138 PageS LP describing the development of 3629 Santa Anita Avenue as a ''business incubator" rather than a hotel.
3 The April 2009 Business Plan further indicates that TV, LLC would serve as the sole general partner while the immigrant investors would be limited partners. The 2010 annual report identified the first project as the development of an "environmental incubator" at 3629 Santa Anita Avenue. On page 4 of the project description, the applicant stated that EI Monte Incubator, LP would own the property. On the same page, the applicant projects that the immigrant investors will hold a 45 percent interest in the limited partnership (five percent each) while TV, LLC, EMRC, LLC, and Green Transit Investment, Inc. (GTN) would hold the remaining 55 percent interest.
• On page 6 ofthe project description, the applicant stated that TV, LLC was the "operator" of the regional center, but that EMRC, LLC ''was furmed to work with TV, LLC as a co-General Partner." On the same page, the applicant explains that GTIV provides supporting assistance. The applicant does not explain the relationship between these three entities. The applicant identifies Bin Ling Lei as ''the'' manager ofTV, LLC and Inhwan Kim as the manager ofEMRC, LLC. The record contains the April I, 2011 docket fur a bankruptcy proceeding listing TV, LLC as the debtor. The docket indicates that on March 24,2011, the court denied TV, LLC's motion fur an order declaring that the property at 3629 Santa Anita Avenue is property of the estate entitled to bankruptcy protection. On July 11,2011, the director issued a notice of intent to terminate listing the following reasons why the applicant was not promoting economic growth: • The applicant had recruited only two investors; • The applicant, TV, LLC, was in bankruptcy proceedings and had insufficient financial resources; and • The September 2010 Annual Report indicates that the regional center still did not own the property to be developed and the ownership ofthis property was in dispute in bankruptcy proceedings. The petitioner's attorney of record responded only to indicate that she had withdrawn as counsel. On July 21, 2011, the director reissued the notice of intent to terminate directly to the applicant and afforded the applicant 30 days to respond. On August 2, 2011, the director reissued the notice for a 3 A business incubator is a facility established to nurture young (startup) flrms during their early months or years. See http://www.businessdictionary.comldefmitionlbusiness-incubator.html. It usually provides affordable space, shared offices and services, hand-on management training, marketing support and, often, access to some form of fmancing. [d. 4 Green Transit Investment, Inc. is currently dissolved as a corporate entity, according to the California Secretary of State. See http://kepler.sos.ca.gov, accessed July 20, 2012 and incorporated into the record of proceeding. <...."...,..---,,?
1Ql RCW 1031910138 Page 6 third time in order to include a copy of the bankruptcy docket and the 2010 Annual Report. Each version ofthe director's notice contained the following detailed admonitions: You have 30 days from the date ofthis notice in which to offer evidence in opposition to the grounds for termination cited herein. Any response to this notice must demonstrate that the E1 Monte Regional Center will maintain a regional center within which aliens seeking to obtain permanent resident status under section 203(b)(5) of the Act will be able to successfully invest in a new commercial enterprise ... with a qualifying investment that will benefit the United States economy and create 10 jobs, including jo.bs indirectly created through the new commercial enterprise. *** In the event you do not respond within the timeframe noted above, the El Monte Regional Center's designation as a regional center will be terminated and you will receive written notification of the final decisions to terminate the E1 Monte Regional , Center's regional center designation. In a letter mailed to USCIS on September 1, 2011, counsel advised the director that the applicant had "just hired" him and requested additional time in which to respond. The director declined to recognize counsel because the petitioner failed to establish that the person listed on the Form 0-28, Notice of Appearance as Attorney or Representative was authorized to represent the regional center. The director separately found no basis to extend the amount oftime to respond. Thus, on September 19,2011, the director issued a final notice terminating the applicant's designation as a regional center for the reasons stated in the notice ofintent to terminate. On October 21,2011, the applicant filed the instant appeal supported by new documentation, including agreements, contracts, court documents from the bankruptcy proceedings and an unresolved breach of contract complaint TV, LLC filed against the City of EI Monte. While new to the record, the documentation predates the director's final decision. III. ANALYSIS A. Recognition OfCounsel The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 292.4 provides that an applicant may substitute its representative through notification of the new attorney and that a notice of appearance must be signed by "the applicant or petitioner." The 2010 annual report the applicant filed lists Bin Ling Lei as a manager. Bin Ling Lei signed the Form 0-28 consenting to Steve Qi's representation. Thus, the director erred in not recognizing Mr. Qi. The AAO now recognizes Mr. Qi as the applicant's counsel and will consider his assertions on appeal. 4 RCW 1031910138 Page 7 B. Consideration ofNew Evidence on Appeal As an independent basis for denying the requested extension, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(6) states that USCIS must provide 30 days in which to respond to a notice of intent to terminate. The regulation does not state that USCIS may provide an extension of time in which to respond. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8)(iv) (USCIS may not permit additional time to respond to a request for additional evidence or a notice of intent to deny). The applicant provides no legal authority suggesting that the director erred in fact or law by not allowing additional time in which to respond. Assuming regulatory requirements [for a notice of intent to revoke] have been satisfied, the decision to revoke approval of a visa petition will be sustained, notwithstanding the submission of evidence on appeal, where a petitioner fails to offer a timely explanation or rebuttal to a properly issued notice of intention to revoke. Matter ofArias, 19 I&N Dec. 568, 570 (BIA 1988) (footnote omitted), Under the circumstances, the AAO will not consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted on appeal. Consequently, the appeal will be adjudicated based on the record before the director. C. Promotion ofEconomic Growth In order to demonstrate compliance with the Public Law requirements, a regional center must describe how it will promote economic growth, detail the amount and source of committed capital and provide verifiable detail how it will create jobs indirectly. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.6(m)(3)(i), (ii). The authority to terminate the participation of a regional center when it no longer serves the purpose of promoting economic growth, 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(6), ensures that a regional center continues to meet those requirements. 58 Fed. Reg. at 44607. 1. Recruitment ofonly two investors The original economic t;eport projected sufficient development for 476 immigrant investors. On appeal, counsel asserts that there is no limitation in the statute or regulations pertaining to the time in which the regional center must recruit investors and that before USCIS terminated the applicant's designation it had recruited seven potential investors. The initial timeline, however, called for development of a showroom/warehouse from May to October 2008, the development of a logistics center from May to November 2008, and wholesale showrooms and an international business incubator from May through April 2009. The January 1, 2008, Confidential Offering Memorandum for TV Hotel Investors, LLC projects that it will raise up to $12 million in capital. The El Monte Incubator, LP project plan that the applicant submitted with the 2010 annual report states that the limited partnership has allocated nine limited partner interests for immigrant investors. The record before the director identified only two immigrant investors. The AAO concurs with the director that the recruitment ofonly two investors during the 26-month period from the approval date of July 25, RCW 1031910138 Page 8 2008 and the September 2010 annual report is not indicative of a regional center that is promoting economic growth. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(6); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(3)(i), (ii). 2. Bankruptcy Proceedings and Financial Resources On appeal, counsel asserts that the applicant filed for bankruptcy to assert its interest in purchasing 3629 Santa Anita Avenue and that, through an investment from Cross Ocean Holdings (USA), Inc., TV, LLC has sufficient financial resources to operate a regional center. The record before the director revealed that TV, LLC was in bankruptcy proceedings as ofJanuary 31,2011. . Black's Law Dictionary 166-67 (9
th ed. 2009) defines bankruptcy as the statutory procedure by which a usually insolvent debtor obtains financial relief and undergoes a judicially supervised reorganization or liquidation of the debtors assets for the benefit of creditors. According to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): "Federal bankruptcy laws govern how companies go out of business or recover from crippling debt."s While the applicant filed under Chapter 11, which allows the debtor to reorganize and attempt to become profitable again, the end result may still be liquidation.
6 Filing for bankruptcy, a remedy for companies with significant debt or liquidity problems, raises legitimate concerns about the debtor's financial resources. The applicant declined to address this issue in response to the director's notice ofintent to terminate. 7 In light of the above, the AAO affirms the director's conclusion that, upon filing for bankruptcy, the applicant was no longer in a position to promote economic growth as contemplated under section 610(c) of the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the JUdiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1993 as amended. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(6); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(3)(i), ( iii). 3. Ownership ofProperty On appeal, counsel reafftrms that the applicant plans to remodel the property located at 3629 Santa Anita Avenue but acknowledges past difficulties in securing the property at that location. Counsel further asserts that the applicant is "determined to develop the El Monte Transit Village Project in the City ofEI Monte" and references the DDA. Counsel acknowledges that the City ofEI Monte has moved forward with other developers, but asserts that the applicant has filed to a lawsuit to "protect its development rights." Finally, counsel asserts that the applicant plans to acquire other property. The record before the director contained no evidence that either the applicant or El Monte Incubator, LP owned any interest in the property at 3629 Santa Anita Avenue. Thus, the AAO affirms the director's concern that the applicant had not demonstrated how it would promote economic growth through the development ofthis property as either a hotel or as a business incubator. S See www.sec.gov/investor/pubslbankrupfhtm, accessed July 20, 2012 and incorporated into the record of proceeding. 6/d. 7 See id. for an explanation of the difference between Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings. 1$ Qj RCW 1031910138 Page 9 Even if the petitioner had acquired or were to acquire that property, the original proposal explained that the regional center would be able to develop this property because of the DDA between the applicant and the City ofEI Monte. The January 1,2008 Confidential Offering Memorandum stated that government concurrence was required to move forward with any development. The record before the director lacked evidence of the necessary "concurrence of all owners and in the case of the governmental entities, compliance with various legal rectories" to develop this property, as discussed in the Confidential Offering Memorandum. The applicant acknowledges on appeal that the City of EI Monte has terminated the DDA and, in fact, is seeking an alternative developer. The applicant asserts that it has sued the City of EI Monte for compensation, damages and an injunction. first, while any party may seek judicial relief in court, there is no assurance that the applicant will prevail. Reliance on a pending lawsuit is entirely speculative. Second, even if the applicant does prevail, the record is absent evidence that the court may award an injunction effectively reinstating the applicant as the developer. The only letters from officials with the City of El Monte supporting the applicant as a regional center predate the termination of the DDA. The applicant has not explained how it will be able to promote economic growth without any support from the City ofEI Monte. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(6); see also 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.6(m)(3)(i), (ii). N. CONCLUSION For the above stated reasons, the applicant is no longer promoting economic growth and, thus, the termination of its regional center status must be upheld. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. I' '= """'!tQl"""'----'
;; CI More From This UserSkip carouselEastside Transit Corridor Phase 2Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2People v. RodriguezRodriguez lawsuitWater, Wastewater & Solid Waste Rate IncreaseCouncilwoman Teresa Real Sebastian's petition to Southern California EdisonJPIA Insurance presentationArent Fox letter to the districtIan Calderon - Form 700 - Statement of Economic InterestsI-215 Brochure MapElection Type Meeting ProgramLetter from Damon Dunn to Bonnie LowenthalLong Beach 2014 State of the CityAre You Ready for "The Big One"Pomona 2013 Crime StatsPeople vs. Scot Spencer, Felice Luciano — Second Amended complaintCriminal Complaint against Paul CianciaDA LHH Brown Act Letter-Aug. 27, 2013 MeetingDA LHH Brown Act Letter-Serial Meeting IssueRonald S. Calderon v. United StatesHearing Officer Decision on City Hall RenovationCampaign Finance Statement - Emma DelgadoCampaign Finance Statement - Louie GonzalezCampaign Finance Statement - Daniel HernandezCampaign Statement - William Garcia
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulFinal Closure of EMRC by SGVNews0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadInterests: Types, Government & PoliticsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedArthur Fowler, Jr. v. Raybourn H. Smiser, Sr., Raybourn H. Smiser, Jr., and Robert Emery Smiser, Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company, Robert M. Barber, Florence G. McCaslin B. D. Lack, Trustee, Leroy Milton Rauch, Sr., E. R. Ledbetter, Receiver, Leroy Milton Rauch, Sr., Bankrupt and Trustee, in the Matter of Leroy Milton Rauch, Sr., Debtor, 274 F.2d 335, 10th Cir. (1960)by Scribd Government DocsNicholas and Virginia Maiorino v. Branford Savings Bank, 691 F.2d 89, 2d Cir. (1982)by Scribd Government DocsLawyer's Secret Oathby SLAVEFATHERGuadano v. Holbrock, 10th Cir. (2003)by Scribd Government DocsGerald L. Butts v. Alexander B. Bigler Ila Ross Bigler, 989 F.2d 491, 4th Cir. (1993)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434 (1973)by Scribd Government DocsCBIZ Corporate Recovery Services: Representing Debtors, Equity Holders & Creditors.by CBIZ Inc.Charles D. Crosby v. Walter Bevan Mills Bonnie Roberts Mills George W. Sperlak the West Aspen Company, a Colorado Corporation Kingcrest Corporation, a Colorado Corporation Bennett King Paul B. Rodden and Rodden, Cooper, Woods and Mitchell, a Partnership, 413 F.2d 1273, 10th Cir. (1969)by Scribd Government Docsi-912by typhoon1999In the Matter of Ancillary Proceedings of Equitable Plan Company, 272 F.2d 158, 2d Cir. (1959)by Scribd Government DocsCRS - U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' Immigration Fees and Adjudication Costs (June 12, 2007)by J CoxGalvez v. Bank of America Corporation et al - Document No. 3by Justia.comJose Lopez v., 3rd Cir. (2014)by Scribd Government Docs25 Legal Reforms for Indiaby Ankit Yadav10000025542by Chapter 11 DocketsIn Matter of Nelson Co., Debtor. Nelson Company v. Counsel for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Creditor v. Amquip Corporation, James J. O'connell, Jr., Esq., Assistant U.S. Trustee, Trustee, 959 F.2d 1260, 3rd Cir. (1992)by Scribd Government DocsEntrepreneurship Lawsby Mtenga GeraldBankr. L. Rep. P 73,793 in Re Benny Leigh Edmonds and Shirley Jeannine Edmonds, Debtors. Lawrence National Bank v. Benny Leigh Edmonds and Shirley Jeannine Edmonds, 924 F.2d 176, 10th Cir. (1991)by Scribd Government DocsWolf v. Stix, 99 U.S. 1 (1879)by Scribd Government DocsLewis v. Roberts, 267 U.S. 467 (1925)by Scribd Government DocsHonda v. Clark, 386 U.S. 484 (1967)by Scribd Government DocsFed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,764, Bankr. L. Rep. P 75,448 in Re Investment Bankers, Inc., Debtor. James H. Turner, Trustee v. Davis, Gillenwater & Lynch Gilbert K. Davis, Individually and as a Partner of Davis, Gillenwater & Lynch, a Partnership, and O'COnnOr & Hannan, a Partnership, Securities Investor Protection Corporation, 4 F.3d 1556, 10th Cir. (1993)by Scribd Government Docs10000003548by Chapter 11 DocketsHoldOutsby zerohedgeJanuary 2015 WC and Medicare Updateby lshipley6110000013051by Chapter 11 DocketsBPI vs CAby Shammae SevillaIn Re M & L Business MacHine Company, Inc., Debtor. Christine J. Jobin, Trustee of the Estate of M & L Business MacHine Company, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Perry S. McKay Defendant-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee, 84 F.3d 1330, 10th Cir. (1996)by Scribd Government DocsSimilar to Final Closure of EMRCSkip carouselArthur Fowler, Jr. v. Raybourn H. Smiser, Sr., Raybourn H. Smiser, Jr., and Robert Emery Smiser, Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company, Robert M. Barber, Florence G. McCaslin B. D. Lack, Trustee, Leroy Milton Rauch, Sr., E. R. Ledbetter, Receiver, Leroy Milton Rauch, Sr., Bankrupt and Trustee, in the Matter of Leroy Milton Rauch, Sr., Debtor, 274 F.2d 335, 10th Cir. (1960)Nicholas and Virginia Maiorino v. Branford Savings Bank, 691 F.2d 89, 2d Cir. (1982)Lawyer's Secret OathGuadano v. Holbrock, 10th Cir. (2003)Gerald L. Butts v. Alexander B. Bigler Ila Ross Bigler, 989 F.2d 491, 4th Cir. (1993)United States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434 (1973)CBIZ Corporate Recovery ServicesCharles D. Crosby v. Walter Bevan Mills Bonnie Roberts Mills George W. Sperlak the West Aspen Company, a Colorado Corporation Kingcrest Corporation, a Colorado Corporation Bennett King Paul B. Rodden and Rodden, Cooper, Woods and Mitchell, a Partnership, 413 F.2d 1273, 10th Cir. (1969)i-912In the Matter of Ancillary Proceedings of Equitable Plan Company, 272 F.2d 158, 2d Cir. (1959)CRS - U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' Immigration Fees and Adjudication Costs (June 12, 2007)Galvez v. Bank of America Corporation et al - Document No. 3Jose Lopez v., 3rd Cir. (2014)25 Legal Reforms for India10000025542In Matter of Nelson Co., Debtor. Nelson Company v. Counsel for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Creditor v. Amquip Corporation, James J. O'connell, Jr., Esq., Assistant U.S. Trustee, Trustee, 959 F.2d 1260, 3rd Cir. (1992)Entrepreneurship LawsBankr. L. Rep. P 73,793 in Re Benny Leigh Edmonds and Shirley Jeannine Edmonds, Debtors. Lawrence National Bank v. Benny Leigh Edmonds and Shirley Jeannine Edmonds, 924 F.2d 176, 10th Cir. (1991)Wolf v. Stix, 99 U.S. 1 (1879)Lewis v. Roberts, 267 U.S. 467 (1925)Honda v. Clark, 386 U.S. 484 (1967)Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,764, Bankr. L. Rep. P 75,448 in Re Investment Bankers, Inc., Debtor. James H. Turner, Trustee v. Davis, Gillenwater & Lynch Gilbert K. Davis, Individually and as a Partner of Davis, Gillenwater & Lynch, a Partnership, and O'COnnOr & Hannan, a Partnership, Securities Investor Protection Corporation, 4 F.3d 1556, 10th Cir. (1993)10000003548HoldOutsJanuary 2015 WC and Medicare Update10000013051BPI vs CAIn Re M & L Business MacHine Company, Inc., Debtor. Christine J. Jobin, Trustee of the Estate of M & L Business MacHine Company, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Perry S. McKay Defendant-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee, 84 F.3d 1330, 10th Cir. (1996)Bank of America v. Celia Ella Corrad, 11th Cir. (2014)10000003870Final Closure of EMRC