Interim Decision #2614

Interim Decision #2614

MATTER OF 0, et al.

In Exclusion Proceedings

A-22432000, et al.

Decided by Board May 12, 1977, and September 14, 1977

(1) This proceeding involves 126 aliens who were applicants for admission to the United

States. They were brought to Guam on United States military aircraft as part of the

evacuation of Vietnam. While they were not natives of Vietnam, they had Vietnamese

spouses and had Vietnamese children. Most had been employed by U.S. Government

contractors. The Service contends. that these aliens were not paroled into the United

States but that their inspection was deferred. The applicants contend they were paroled

into the United States under section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

and therefore entitled to prior notice before exclusion proceedings were begun.

(2) It is the opinion of the Board that these applicants were paroled. The procedure

employed in bringing them to the United States was no different from the procedure

used to bring aliens to the United States who concededly were paroled under section

212(d)(5) of the Act. The correspondence written by the Attorney General and Commissioner to the Congress would appear not to limit the use or the parole authority solely to

natives of Vietnam. Congress, in defining the term "refugee" used a definition broad

enough to encompass the present applicants which supports the conclusion that th000

applicants were not to be treated differently than native–born Vietnamese. The applicants were persons who had lived in Vietnam. The majority of them had been employed at one time or another by U.S. Government contractors. They were removed

from Vietnam with the express consent of the United States Government. These facts

taken together lead to the conclusion that the applicants were paroled into the United

States.

(3) Under 8 C.F.R. 212.5(b) an alien is entitled to written notice of termination of parole

prior to the institution of exclusion proceedings. These aliens were paroled; however,

the Service did not provide them with written notice of termination of their parole prior

to the institution of exclusion proceedings, as required by 8 C.F.R. 212.5(c). The Service

motion for reconsideration of the Board's decision terminating the exclusion proceedings is denied.

EXCLUDABLE:

Order Act of 1952—Section 212(a)(20) [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(20)1—Immigrant—no visa

ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:

Paul C. Vincent, Esquire

Chief Trial Attorney

ON BEHALF OF APPLICANTS:

Jack Wasserman, Esquire

Wasserman, Orlow, Ginsberg Sr Rubin

1707 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Before the Board May 12, 1977

Milhollan, Chairman; Wilson, Maniatis, and Appleman, Board Members

344

Interim Decision #2614

These cases are before us on appeals from decisions of an immigration

judge finding each applicant excludable from the United States under

section 212(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Each applicant was brought to the United States territory of Guam by United States

authorities in the course of evacuating various persons from the Republic of Vietnam in April and May 1975. The total number of these

evacuees numbered approximately 130,000. Exclusion hearings were

conducted on September 8 and 9, 1975. In each hearing, several applicants appeared before the immigration judge simultaneously. In all, six

hearings are involved concerning 126 aliens. In turn, these matters

were consolidated on appeal and argued as one case before the Board.

In each instance, the applicant was brought to Guam on military

aircraft. It appears that some of the applicants had "affidavits" ' from

the United States Embassy; others had had their passports stamped by

an embassy official. In either case, the possession of the affidavit or the

stamped passport was sufficient documentation to enable each applicant

to board United States military aircraft or vessels and to be brought to

United States territory. None of the applicants, which was apparently

the case with all alien evacuees regardless of nationality, had visas in

their possession. All of the applicants were born in countries other than

Vietnam, a fact which seems to underlie these exclusiqon proceedings.

In each ease, the immigration judge found that the applicants had not

been paroled into the United States; that their inspection had merely

been deferred and that they therefore were excludable under section

212(a)(20) of the Act. The applicants contend that they were paroled

into the United States pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act, and

therefore were entitled to a written notice of revocation of parole prior

to the institution of exclusion proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. 212.5. No such

notice was given since the Service took the view that parole had not

been granted. The applicants also argue that even if they were not

paroled, the Government is equitably estopped from excluding and

deporting them since they were brought here by the United States and

with full knowledge that they lacked visas at that time. Finally, the

applicants argue that any exclusion order is ineffective since they cannot, in any event, be returned to the Republic of Vietnam, which they

argue is the "country from whence they came" and the only country to

which they may be returned under section 236 of the Act. _

In none of the six cases does the immigration judge's decision contain

a detailed discussion with respect to each applicant. The transcripts also

The nature of these affidavits is not entirely clear from the record. However, it

appears that there were forms normally used by the Embassy for matters other than

parole.

345

Interim Decision #2614

do not reveal much individual information. However, all but one 2 of the

126 aliens who are involved were interviewed by Service officers prior

to the exclusion hearings. The transcripts of these interviews were

introduced into evidence in each instance. 3

Although the status and backgrounds of the majority of the applicants

is similar, there are enough differences to warrant fuller discussion. For

convenience, each joint hearing will be referred to separately by the

name of one alien.

The immigration judge's decision in Ho Joo Wong concerns 33 aliens.

Thirty-two are Koreans and one is a native and citizen of India. All but

four of this group had worked, at least at one time, for United States

Government contractors. Among the four who did not is the Indian

native, who was self-employed, and one Korean who was a seaman, but

who lived in Saigon. Seven of this group are married to Vietnamese

women. One other, although married to a Vietnamese, had not divorced

his Korean wife. Five other applicants admitted to "common-law" relationships with Vietnamese women. They had been in Vietnam for a

period of nine years, eight months, to two years. The large majority had

arrived in Vietnam prior to 1970. Several had initially entered Vietnam

as members of the Army of the Republic of Korea and had remained

after discharge and, ultimately, taken employment with United States

contractors. Four indicated they were permanent residents of Vietnam,

or intended to become such.

In Yonk Sik Ko, 37 aliens are involved. Five are Chinese and the

remainder are Koreans. Of this group, eleven Koreans had Vietnamese

wives and, in most instances, children. One Chinese had a Vietnamese

wife. One other Chinese applicant had two children who were born in

Vietnam, but whose wife was a Chinese citizen. He was a permanent

resident of Vietnam_ One other Chinese citizen indicated that he had

intended to become a permanent resident.

All but a few of these applicants had been employed by United States

contractors. Two of the Chinese had worked for Air America. All these

applicants had been in Vietnam prior to evacuation for periods ranging

from five years to nine years and six months.

U Soon Yi concerns 18 aliens. This group is more diverse. Seven are

Koreans, three are Laotians,' six are Filipinos and two are Chinese.

2 The one applicant who does not appear to have been interviewed is the wife of an

applicant who was interviewed and who furnished information about his wife.

3 In four of the hearings, the applicants were represented by counsel. With respect to

these hearings, counsel objected to the introduction of the written statements. This

objection has not been pursued on appeal.

None of the Laotians were in Vietnam at the time of evacuation but were evacuated

from Thailand. One of the Laotians was born in Vietnam, but indicated that she was a

Laotian citizen. The other two had no connection whatever with Vietnam.

346

Interim Decision #2614

One of the Chinese natives claimed Vietnamese citizenship, but lacked

proof to establish his claim. As in the ether cases, some of the applicants

had Vietnamese wives. At least four, three Filipinos and one Chinese,

appeared to be permanent residents of Vietnam. Most of these applicants had also worked at one time for United. States contractors.

Eighteen aliens are involved in Chong Ku 0. All are Koreans. None

appeared to have any family ties in Vietnam other than "common-law"

wives, and, in some cases, children born of such relationships. At least

one applicant had never been employed by a United States contractor.

None had been in Vietnam prior to evacuation for a period of less than

five years; some had been in Vietnam for nearly nine years. One applicant had a Form 1-94 which indicated that he had been paroled into the

United States at Hawaii. He was thereafter airlifted to Guam.

In Moon Sik Paik, 15 aliens are involved. All are Koreans. Fourteen of these worked for United States contractors, at least at one

time, while in Vietnam. None had Vietnamese families. The aliens in

this group had been in Vietnam for periods ranging from nine years and

two months to four years and three months.

Finally, five aliens are involved in Du k Alton Chen. All are Koreans.

Three had worked for United States contractors, and one for a component of the United States Army. The fifth alien entered Vietnam as a

member of the Army of the Republic of Korea. It is not clear whether he

ever worked for a United States Government contractor. Four of these

applicants arrived in Vietnam in 1957; the other in 1971.

I

Under section 212(d)(5):

The Attorney General may in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily

under such conditions as he may prescribe for emergent reasons or fur reasons deemed

strictly in the public interest any alien applying for admission to the United States, but

such parole of such alien shall not he regarded as an admission of the alien and when the

purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Attorney General, have been served

the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled

and thereafter his ease shall continue to,be dealt with in the same manner as that of any

other applicant for admission to the United States.

Under the regulations, the authority- to grant parole has been delegated

to the District Director of the port of entry in which the alien seeks to

come to the United States 8 C.F .R. 212.5(a). The regulation contemplates in the ordinary situation that parole will be granted at such

time as an alien presents himself for inspection in the United States.

However, 8 C.F.R. 212.5(c) makes provisions for the granting of advance

parole. Under this portion of the regulation an alien outside the United

States, but who will be coming to the United States, may seek parole

pursuant to section 212(d)(5). In the usual circumstance, if parole is

247

Interim Decision #2614

granted, he will be issued Form 1-512. See also Operations Instruction

212.5(c). If an alien has been paroled, "parole may be terminated on

written notice to the alien and he shall be restored to the status which

he had at the time of parole and further inspection or hearing shall be

conducted under section 235 and 236 of the Act. . . ." 8 C.F.R. 212.5(b).

It is clear upon these records that none of the applicants were issued

Form 1-512. However, it also appears that none of the other approximately 130,000 alien evacuees who came to the United States from

Vietnam was issued such a form, regardless of nationality. 'Thus, pro

cedurally, these aliens were treated no differently than any others being

brought to United States territory from Vietnam in April and :May 1975.

As we understand the position of the Service, these aliens were not

paroled into the United States, but merely brought to this country by

the United States Government for a determination to be made on arrival

whether they would then be paroled. We are unaware of, and the

Service had not provided us any authority making it lawful for the

Government to bring these aliens to the United States other than the

parole authority granted the Attorney General under section 212(d)(5)

of the Act_ No special legislation was enacted which would have permitted the entry of such a group of aliens. The term "parole" is not defined

in the Act itself, nor in the regulations. We are unaware of any cases,

either of the courts, or this Board, which define "parole." The Service's

own Operations Instructions also do not define parole. Neither counsel

for the respondents nor the Service have pointed us to any source which

would define the term.

However, in 1975, there was a significant amount of correspondence

between the Attorney General, the Commissioner of Immigration and

Naturalization, the State Department, and members of Congress, concerning the status of the evacuees. This correspondence has been reprinted as an appendix to the Staff Reports of the Senate Subcommittee

to Investigate Problems Connected with Refugees and Escapees of the

Senate Committee of the Judiciary, 94th Congress, 1st Session

[hereinafter Staff Reports]. These letters were referred to at oral argument by the counsel for the applicants and the appellate trial attorney

for the Service.

It is clear from these letters that the legal authority invoked for

bringing the aliens from Vietnam to the U.S. was section 212(d)(5) of

the Act. 5 The April 18, 1975, letter from the commissioner indicates that

initially, the INS intended to parole certain classes of Vietnamese war

5 E.g., Letter from Roger J. McCloskey, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations, Department of State, to Senator Edward M. Kennedy (April 24, 1975) reprinted in

Staff Reports, App. III at 157; Letter from L.P. Chapman, Commission of Immigration

and Naturalization, to Senator James 0. Eastland, (April 18, 1975) reprinted in Staff

Reports, App. IV at 162.

348

Interim Decision #2614

refugees. These included certain Cambodians in Thailand, a small

number of South Vietnamese in the Philippines, approximately 3,000

Vietnamese for whom visa petitions had been filed, a larger number

of Vietnamese nationals who were immediate relatives of United States

citizens or close relatives of lawful permanent residents, and certain

other Cambodian refugees and diplomats. 6 In an April 22, 1975, letter,

the Commissioner states that an additional class of 50,000 natives of

Vietnam who were in a "high risk" category because of their close

association with the U.S. Government in Vietnam were to be paroled by

the Service.? A letter of April 28, 1975, from the Secretary of State to the

Attorney General requested that the "high risk" categories of Vietnamese be expanded to include former employees of United States firms

operating in Vietnam. 8

We note that the letter to this time referred to Vietnamese natives or

nationals of Vietnam. However, in a letter from the Commissioner to

the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the "high risk" category was to include "five types of Vietnamese persons" and such class

was to be expanded. 9 In a letter dated July 15, 1975, the Commissioner

noted that there were on Guam a number of families whose principal

member was not Vietnamese. It was proposed that they all be treated

as refugees. '° The references in this letter were to 'refugees" and not

specifically to Vietnamese natives.

These letters, standing by themselves, are inconclusive as to whether

or not non-Vietnamese aliens who were evacuated by the United States

were intended to be paroled into the United States. We do note, however, that the early correspondence refers to Vietnamese natives, while

later correspondence does not. Also, as 'with certain non-Vietnamese

refugees discussed in the Commissioner's letter of July 15, 1975, several

of the present applicants appear to have family or other ties to Vietnam.

Additional factors also must be considered. Congress, in an attempt to

assist the evacuees, passed legislation which permitted funding for the

necessary costs of bringing the refugees to the United States. This

legislation, enacted on May 23, 1975, is known as the Indochina MigraId.

Letter from L.F. Chapman, Commissioner, to Senator James 0. Eastland (April 22,

1975) reprinted in Staff Reports, App. IV at 164. See also Letter from Edward H. Levi,

Attorney General, to Senator - James 0. Eastland (April 22, 1975) reprinted in Staff

Reports App. IV at 164, 165.

Letter from Henry A. Kissinger to Edward H. Levi, (April 28, 1975)reprinted in Staff

Reports, App. IV at 167.

Letter from L.F. Chapman, to Senator James 0. Eastland (April 28, 1975)reprinted

in Staff Reports, App. IV at 158.

1 ° letter from L.F Chapman to Senator James 0. Eastland (July 15, 1975) reprinted in

Staff' Reports, App. IV at 170-171.

349

Interim Decision #2614

tion and Refugee Assistance Act of 1975, Pub. L. 94-23 89 Stat. 87.

Section 3 of this Act defines the term "refugee" as:

. . . aliens who (A) because of persecution or fear of persec -ution on account of race,

religion, or political opinion, fled from Cambodia or Vietnam; (B) cannot return there

because of fear of persecution on account of race, religion, or political opinions; and (C)

are in urgent need of assistance to the essentials of life."

This definition on its face does not restrict the term refugee to natives of

Vietnam or Cambodia exclusively. A review of the legislative history

does not add any further light on the bare definition contained in the Act

itself. Similarly, a review of the floor debates appearing in the Congressional Record 11 also does not amplify this definition any further.

The present applicants would seem to fall within the definition of

refugee as provided in the Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance

Act of 1975. They are aliens; they did apparently, or at least claim to

have fled Vietnam for fear of persecution because of race, religion, or

political opinion. They, just as native-born Vietnamese, would not be

able to return there for the same reasons and apparently were in need of

assistance for the essentials of life. Those aliens who are permanent

residents of Vietnam would indeed appear most likely to be those

non-Vietnamese who Congress intended to be included within this definition of refugee. Although this term by itself does not indicate that these

applicants were meant to be encompassed within the parole authority of

the Attorney General, it does tend to the conclusion that the assistance

was not being limited merely to Vietnamese nationals.

Counsel for the applicants at oral argument raised as an additional

matter the contention that these applicants could not be returned to a

country other than Vietnam, since that is "the country from whence

they came." See section 236 of the Act. While we do not pass on that

argument, we note that there is case law that holds "the country from

whence he mine" means the last country where an alien applicant had a

place of abode. United States v. Holland-America Line, 231 F.2d 373 (2

Cir. 1956); see also Menon v. Esperdy, 413 F.2d 644 (2 Cir. 1969);

United States ex rel. Shang v. Murff, 176 F. Supp. 253 (S.D.N.Y. 1959),

affirmed 274 F.2d 667 (2 Cir. 1960). In this case each of the present

applicants other than those noted 12 was either a resident or domiciliary

,

of Vietnam. Thus the country to which they will have to be returned

would normally be the Republic of Vietnam. This would appear to lend

further support to the idea that Congress intended to include the present applicants within the term "refugee" since if they were not admissible they might, in theory, be returned to Vietnam.

" 121 Cong. Rec. H4039 et seq. (daily ed. May 14, 1975).

12 See note 4, supra.

350

Interim Decision #2614

There are, then, several points which, taken together, persuade us

that these applicants were paroled. The procedure employed in bringing

the applicants to the United States apparently was no different from the

procedure used to bring aliens to the United States who concededly

were paroled pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act. The correspondence from the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Immigration

and Naturalization to Congress would appear not to limit the use of the

parole authority solely to natives of Vietnam. Congress, in defining

"refugee," used a definition broad enough to encompass the present

applicants, which in turn lends some support to the conclusion that

these applicants were not to be treated differently than native-born

Vietnamese. They were "persons" who had lived in Vietnam. The

majority of them had been employed at one time or another by the

United States Government contractors. They were removed from Vietnam with the express consent of the United States Government. All this

taken together leads to the conclusion that the applicants were, in fact,

paroled. 13

Since we conclude that the applicants were paroled pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act, the question remains as to what effect this will

have on these exclusion proceedings. Under 8 C.F.R. 212.5(b), the

applicants are entitled to written notice of termination of their parole

prior to the institution of exclusion proceedings. This was not done and

the exclusion proceedings were prematurely instituted. At a minimum

then, the records must be returned to the Service. The applicants must

be given notice of termination of parole before further proceedings may

occur."

However, due to the peculiar circumstances of this case, the Service

may wish to consider more than merely furnishing the applicants a

written notice of revocation and then reinstating exclusion proceedings.

In the past, in eases involving similar fact settings, hearings have been

" At oral argument counsel also placed some reliance on cases concerning aliens who

had been brought to the United States involuntarily. See United States ea rel. Sommerkaup v. Zimmerman, 178 F.2d 645 (2 Cir. 1949); United States ex rel. Paetanv.Watkins,

164 F.2d 457 (2 Cir. 1949; United States as rel. Bradley v. Watkins, 1631<.2d 328 (2 Cir.

1947). The cases are distinguishable since the present applicants do not claim to have

been brought to the United States involuntarily nor is there any indication they wish to

withdraw their applications for admission.

" Counsel for the applicants also argues that in any event the Government would be

equitably estopped from excluding these applicants. In view of the disposition we made of

this case we need not address that contention. Nonetheless, absent the finding of affirmative misconduct, the Government week) not he equitably estopped from deporting or

excluding aliens from the United States. See Matter of Morales, Interim Decision 2416

(BIA 1975). See generally RN v. INS, 414 U.S. 5 (1913).

351

Interim Decision #2614

held in which aliens have been given the opportunity to contest revocation of parole. See United States ex rel. Paktorovics v. Murff, 260 F.2d

610 (2 Cir. 1958). If a similar course were followed here, the issue could

be met whether non-Vietnamese nationality, in itself warranted an alien

being treated differently from the other parolees." Since we have

concluded that these applicants were in fact paroled, the Service may, of

course, choose to place the applicants in extended parole status rather

then to revoke parole. We recognize that the decision to grant, revoke,

or extend parole is within the province of the District Director and that

any appeal from that decision lies else-where than to the Board.

ORDER: The exclusion proceedings are terminated.

Before the Board September 14, 1977

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Wilson, Maniatis, Appleman, and Maguire, Board Members

This case is before us on motion of the Service requesting that we

reconsider our decision dated May 12, 1977, in which we terminated

exclusion proceedings of 126 aliens brought to the United States territory

of Guam by United States authorities as part of their attempt to evacuate

persons from South Vietnam during April and May 1975. The primary

basis for our decision was our finding that the applicants had been paroled

into the United States pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act and that,

therefore, they were entitled to written notice of termination of their

parole prior to the institution of exclusion proceedings.

The Service argues that, although the applicants were paroled on

Guam pending disposition of their applications to stay in the United

States as refugees, it was not necessary to formally revoke parole

before instituting exclusion proceedings.

Whether the applicants had been paroled initially upon arrival on

Guam, or were paroled after arrival, as now conceded by the Service, is

immaterial. It is a fact that they were paroled. Under these circumstances, the regulations require that notice be given, perhaps so

that the District Director may consider an extension of parole in a given

case, rather than placing the aliens in exclusion proceedings im-

" In this connection we note that the three Laotians, Huong Chan, Somphone

Xongnixay, and Chan Thone Saladouangchanik, all appear to have secured passage under

false names and possible false claims of Vietnamese citizenship. The Service may wish to

consider this in connection with extension or revocation of parole.

352

Interim Decision #2614

mediately.' Whatever the reason for the regulation, it exists, and it was

not complied with.

The regulation in question is clear. Under S C.F.R. 212.5(b), aliens

are entitled to written notice of termination of their parole prior to the

institution of exclusion proceedings. Inasmuch as we have found that

the applicants here were, in fact, paroled into the United States, there

is no reason to look behind the clear meaning of the words used hi the

regulation. In addition, we note that any parole status is temporary. It

makes no difference whether the purpose of the parole ivas to allow the

applicants to enter while a determination is made on their present

applications for asylum, or on a review of a previous grant of asylum, 2 or

for some other purpose. The regulations require that before a parole

status is revoked, the alien shall receive notice of the Government's

intention.

We note in passing, that the fact that these aliens resided for long

periods in South Vietnam before being evaculated by United States

authorities, further complicates the serious legal issues raised if they

are not treated as other parolees in like circumstances and parole is

sought to be revoked without notice solely because they are not native-

born Vietnamese.

Accordingly, we will not retreat from our prior decision and the

motion will be denied

ORDER: The motion is denied.

APPENDIX

A22 056 081

A22 056 089

A22 056 095

A22 056 103

A22 056 108

A22 056 240

A22 056 266

A22 056 268

A22 056 269

A22 056 270

A22 056 273

A22 056 285

A22 056 289

A22 056 296

A22 056 326

A22 056 337

A22 056 340

CHAN, Sang Ho

KIM, Chi Duk

LEE, Ju Bak

KIM, Kwang Ui

KIM, Yu Myong

KIM, Hae Young

CHO, Sung Ok

JUN, Huyng Kon

HWANG, Krung Ok _

CHOE, Pok Su ,

IM, Yon Yong

HWANG, Sang In

LEE, Duk Ho

KIM, Kap Sin

LEE, Ju Hun

KANG, Tae Un

CHAI, Hyun Joo

A22 056 027

A22 056 032

A22 056 036

A22 056 106

A22 056 317

A22 055 162

A22 055 163

A22 055 164

A22 056 291

A22 056 299

A22 056 314

A22 056 315

A22 056 322

A22 056 330

A22 056 331

A22 056 3:38

YI, U Soon

AN, He Seon

KIM, Tong Chi

OH, Boo Ken

IGNAGIO, Victor A.

CHAN, Huong

SOMPHONG, Xongnixay

CHAN TkiuNE,

Sonladovangchanh

YI, Se Icon

KIM, Ki Hong

DOMINGO, Jose V.

ASISTORES, Rogelito A.

LUU, Dung Tuyen

FINES, Eugenio Castillo

PAVILONIA, Gavino P.

MENDOZA, Jose C.

1 This procedure also permits an alien to withdraw his application for admission to the

United States on uccabiou and to leave voluntarily, before the inotitution of oxelueion

proceedings.

2 See United States ex rel. Paktorcraks v. Murff, 260 F.2d 610 (2 Cir. 1958).

353

Interim Decision #2614—Appendix

APPENDIX

A22 056 105 KIM, Tong Chol

A22 056 111 YUN, Young U

A22 044 152 HERKISHNANI,

A22 056 342 KIM, Im Sock

A22 051 742 CHU, Hok Shun

A22 056 092

A22 056 096

A22 056 101

A22 056 109

A22 056 112

A22 056 267

A22 056 271

A22 056 279

A22 056 284

A22 056 293

A22 056 295

A22 056 297

A22 056 327

A22 056 329

A22 010 842

A22 056 080

.A22 056 088

A22 056 107

A22 056 310

.A22 056 334

PAIK, Moon Sik

KIM, Im Sock

LEE, Han Suk

KIM, Bong Ha

LEE, Sung Mo

CHANG, Jung Ryang

KIM, Bok Dong

LIM, Chong Ok

YANG, Jin Sook

RA, Myung Chin

YI, Yun Chi

LEE, Sang Soo

SHIM, Un Hong

MOON, Jung Yul

CHOI, Yoo Bae

CHA, Hyun Duk

KANG, Young Ki

KANG, Suk Dong

LEE, Young Kook

LEE, Wook Chong

A21 432 001

.A22 056 033

A22 056 034

A22 056 035

A22 056 037

A22 056 038

.922 056 039

A22 056 040

A22 056 082

A22 056 083

.A22 056 084

A22 056 085

A22 056 086

A22 056 090

A22 056 091

A22 056 094

A22, 056 097

A22 056 098

_A22 056 099

A22 056 100

A22 056 102

A22 056 110

HWANG, Ho Joo

KIM, Kwang Sohn

KIM, Poom Hoon

KIM, Ho Bum

KUM, Do Sun

CHOI, Sung Ki

LEE, Sok Rae

KIM, Su KR

HUH, Yoo Soon

PAK, Hyun Pil

CHOE, Ki Woung

LEE, Dae Bong

CHUN, Dong Ok

JUN, Kwang Sam

LEE, Ju Tai

KIM, Ki Hyun

NAM, Chong Uk

PAK, Chun Ho

KANG, Song Run

SONG, Ki Soo

YI, Yong Hui

LEE, Dae Bok

LEE, Wong Son

A22 056 104

LEE, Ho Sun

A22 056 087

A22 044 201

A22 056 264

A22 056 265

A22 056 272

A22 056 274

A22 056 275

A22 056 093

A22 056 276

.A22 056 277

.A22 056 278

.A22 056 280

A22 056 281

A22 056 286

A22 056 288

A22 056 290

A22 056 292

A22 056 294

A22 056 298

A22 056 306

A22 056 307

A22 056 308

A22 056 309

A22 056 311

A22 042 323

A22 056 323

A22 056 324

A22 056 325

A22 056 328

A22 056 332

A22 056 333

A22 056 335

A92 056 336

A22 056 339

A22 056 341

A22 056 344

A22 056 352

A22 056 353

A22 002 659

A22 034 756

A22 010 841

A22 431 905

A22 056 316

A22 056 343

354

Lachhman

CHOI, Doo Hyon

BAK, Soon Hwan

CHA. Won

KANG, Song Jik

HONG, Sung Joo

LEE, Joo Kwang

KO, Yong Sik

SU, Sa Gil

KIM, Yong Kak

CHUNG, Jun Hun

Y1, Too Yul

YI, Soo Ja .

YOON, Hwa Young

KIM, Sung Ku

WON, Yong Hai

HONG, Che Chin

CHANG, Tu Kuk

KIM, Sok Kyu

YU, Foo Chen

MA, Huai Teh

LAU, Chun Pong

KIM, Young Joung

RANG, Chun Hyong

CHUNG, Chang Ho

SHIH, Min Rung

NAM, Soo Bok

SO, Chang Wan

SOK, Byong Hwan

NAM, Kyung Hee

YI, Su Tae

PAK, Chae Ho

SIN, Hyong Kyun

LEE, Moo Kun

HWANG, nu Hyon

SU, Tai In

KOO, Young Hoe

LEE, Won Ki

LEE, Won Tae

CH1J, Hwang Kuai

CHUNG, Jhoon Ki

YOON, Sung Ho

LEE, Kyong Ok

KIM, Young KI