Flight Intructor kidnapped student
 

There just has to be a lot more to this story!

Much of the initial news coverage of this incident seems to derive from this story in the local Redding paper:



Audio of the incident here:

https://www.redding.com/videos/news/...hool/35414709/

More in the news article:

https://www.redding.com/story/news/2...aff/647842002/

Ms. Hoser (stripes are in this year ;)) is mentioned as Mr. McConkey's assistant. Her LinkedIn profile reveals that she has been Director of Administration for IASCO for the past few weeks. She also lists the current title of Deputy Director, Ground School for Qingdao Jiutian International Flight Academy.

She previously lists regional, national and global sales manager positions with Continental and United and a M.S. degree from University of Illinois.

With this background it would seem unlikely that she didn't know the illegality of any scheme to involuntarily repatriate a foreign flight student without due process.

Was the order to return Shi from the Chinese sponsors perhaps?

See: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kelsi-c-hoser-81003a48

Rendition by any other name? Surely not.

The getaway van, a Chrysler with license plate JHF990, was driven by Hoser on the way to the airport. The police checked an apartment where Shi was initially staying and they were referred to another apartment where they got a description of the getaway vehicle and the rendition crew.

Shi's phone was pinged and police units were able to locate Shi and his captors in one of the IASCO buildings at the Redding airport. Apparently the plan was to fly Shi to SFO and put him on a flight back to China. Maybe they had to swing by the office to pick up Shi's passport or an order cancelling his visa.

IASCO was bought by Jiutian International Flight Academy in 2015.

It sounds as if someone in the home country wanted him back there for some reason. Maybe he wasn't willing to return or maybe they thought he wouldn't be willing, so didn't ask, just acted. It's going to be really interesting to hear the motives of the Americans involved, if they ever fess up.

This sounds a bit strange to me. Perhaps this is China-speak for "something else".

The latest reason given for this is that the instructor though Shi had poor English and so would not be able to complete his course.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ina-say-police

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marchino61 (Post 10159578)

The latest reason given for this is that the instructor though Shi had poor English and so would not be able to complete his course.

---

I don't think that is any change in the reason given for removing Shi from training. Are you thinking of the other student Zhang Xun Yi perhaps?

Quote:

---

A second IASCO Flight Training student has come forward to say he was confronted in his home by the program's manager and told he'd be sent home to China immediately over what he says was a small infraction of rules.

Zhang Xun Yi, 24, shared his experience after the case of Tianshu Shi, the 21-year-old man Redding Police say was the victim of an attempted kidnapping by two employees of the school, became public.

Yi said the school grounded him about three weeks ago. He said he believes it was because he allowed a friend he has made in Redding into his home to use the restroom. A call to IASCO was not returned Saturday.

---

McConkey and Hoser were mighty brave when they were yelling at Shi. Something tells me they will be a lot less bold before the Court. Both posted $100,000 bond and have been released from the Shasta County Jail.

California is an all-party permission required recording state but I'm sure it will be argued that since the loud dialog took place in the presence of multiple roommates, there was no expectation of privacy. Shi's recording will most likely be admissible in legal proceedings is my layman's guess.



http://www.redding.com/story/news/20...aff/647842002/

From a Reddit thread, translation of Ms. Hoser's and Shi's Chinese in angle brackets:

In the recording some posters feel that her Mandarin is more fluent than her English.

How fortunes have changed for the school that provided JAL cadets with ab initio training in Napa.

As far as I know, there are some ways to get a visa renewal even if his visa will be invaild.

A student visa may be extended, or approved if the intl student takes on a new course of study from an accredited source. If he washed out of the approved pilot course, he could attend university, and request that his new course of study is within the same guidelines for intl student visa. In most cases, the immigration people will be ok with that, provided it's an accredited school. However, the sponsor in China is likely not going to supply expenses for the new course of study, so he's on the hook for paying tuition, and living.

As for the pilot school admins - I think they are in for a world of hurt from the state. Pretty much everything said on that tape and their actions are going to bury them.

What's the normal sentence for kidnapping???

Looks like 3-8 years.

https://www.shouselaw.com/kidnapping.html

could be more for 'aggravated'. something the prosecutor will decide when charging.

Even if he is "out of status", only ICE or USCIS are authorized to actually remove the person from the US. Anybody else should not be taking law into their hands.

And even then, usually only after a court order. These people are going to be in jail for a long time.

Some background on Shi's immigration status from local media:



https://www.redding.com/story/news/local/2018/06/01/iasco-flight-shool-employees-alleged-student-kidnapping/658005002/

Hoser's attorney Naomi Chung, Esq. says that Hoser was frustrated and aggravated with Shi and that is why she and McConkey used 'strong language'. She was 'set up' with the recording and everything needs to be put in context. And besides, Hoser is a 50-year-old 90-pound Asian female without a gun so how can that be considered kidnapping, Your Honor? :D



https://www.redding.com/story/news/2...ney/666584002/

Well, then the rules have changed since 2004. My bro-in-law came over on a student visa for a course of study in one field at one institution(I will not name either). He quit that course of study, went in a completely different direction, and began attending a completely different advanced and accredited university. I went with him to the Immigration office in downtown LA(twice, two long, full days) and he was re-issued a student visa right there on the spot. We had to take a lot of paperwork, and get a letter from the chair of the dept at the new school, and the Immigration people were just fine stamping him to continue. If it's different now, I guess I will defer to others with more recent experience. Can you share your more recent experience?

This IASCO fiasco serves as a reminder to all other flight academies specializing in foreign student training that professionalism remains important even when nobody is (apparently) watching. In a professionally staffed and managed organization, standards of behavior and processes for addressing student or staff problems are strictly adhered to. This was an example of how NOT to handle a student with disciplinary or program advancement difficulties.

At the academy where I flight instruct, there is a multi-step process of incremental remedial measures employed to correct student deficiencies of a subject matter knowledge, flight proficiency or behavioral nature. Meeting ICAO English proficiency standards is a BIG part of it and great effort is applied toward achieving this goal by both school and students.

These steps are part of the contractual training agreement entered into with the sponsoring airline and must be adhered to under US contracts law. It is ultimately the decision of the sponsoring airline paying the bills as to whether or not to continue training with a problematic student. It's not a matter of simply becoming frustrated with a student and putting them on a plane home! The school conducts a review board and makes recommendations, which are then presented for review and approval by the sponsoring airline entity. The airlines also have contractual agreements with the cadets, which are governed by applicable laws in their home country.The bottom line is that it's an international business agreement. Professional standards and behavior are required at all times. Clearly this was not the case here!

On a personal note I'd like to add that I admire the effort and tenacity of the international students at our school. Almost all are remarkably motivated and studious young men. They come straight from university to a program in their home country where they receive initial training, assessment and are selected for acceptance. Then they come to the US for the next year plus to go from zero hours to commercial pilot, multi-engine land, instrument airplane plus complete a turbine and multi-crew transition course before returning home for their airline training (a further 6-12 months, but back home) before becoming a line first officer on B737 or A320 aircraft at their sponsor airline. Zero to hero F.O. in under 3 years! Remarkable that they accomplish all this in a foreign (to them) language.

I would also add that most of the flight skill deficiencies I find myself tasked with correcting are attributable to language barrier related issues. During the stress and challenge of flight training, language interpretation and understanding is one of the first things to go. Never has the saying "The airplane is a terrible classroom" been more true than when instructing Asian students. It's not their fault, but it is true nonetheless that this is the biggest challenge with the Asian flight student. However in my view, challenges should be met with innovation and increased effort rather than with anger and aggressive behavior. I hope IASCO makes an effort to do better. And it's a lesson for all flight academies to learn from.

About 700 hours dual given and several ground courses taught to Chinese students in the last year. I'm still learning plenty.

I suspect pressure will be applied to families etc in China to make all this go away and save face all round. You know the kind, non-issue of a permit so Grandad has to go back to his village, seizure of famiy cars, a niece being kicked out of grade school etc etc until the victims/witnesses quietly drop the whole thing

G

when you have a slam-dunk case it's v hard to get the local DA to drop a kidnapping case..... looks good when he/she runs for Mayor or Governor

To supplement what Wannabe Flyer has posted:

There is a difference between the actual visa stamp, and the I-94 arrival/departure record. Long story short, once someone is in the U.S., the visa stamp itself is totally irrelevant.

Long story: a visa is nothing more than permission to apply for admission to the U.S. in a particular status. That status can be immigrant or non-immigrant. Well-known non-immigrant statuses are B-1, H-1, L-1, M-1 and F-1. When the CBP officer at the port of entry determines that you are indeed eligible to enter the U.S. in that particular class, he or she will issue a form I-94 (these days they can be issued electronically as well). The form I-94 shows your status and maximum stay. For example, when I moved to the U.S. on my L-1 visa, my length of stay was always determined by the end-date of my I-129 petition, not the expiration date of my visa.

That I-94 document is very important, because USCIS has the authority to re-issue it. For example, if you enter the country on an L-1, but convert to an H-1, you will get a new I-94 with that. You can stay until the expiration date of that I-94, UNLESS you need to travel outside of the U.S. In that case, you need to get an H-1 visa stamped.

In your case, since you got a new I-94 in the same classification, there was no need to get a new visa stamped: the visa itself was issued for the same class.

Apologies for getting a bit off-topic here, but I think this may be of interest to other folks as well. For those interested in immigration policies etc, the USCIS Field Manual is a good read: https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/.../0-0-0-15.html

whatever the reasons, the students are entitled to dignified treatment as human beings, and customers as well, would be nice to see IASCO itself have to answer for this..

I wouldn't be surprised that the sponsor had told IASCO to send the student back. But there are many gradations between eviction and kidnapping that the lawyers will be $orting out.

Bingo. We had a non-immigrant visa. The course of study was changed, but it was still a non-immigrant visa. It was extended WITHOUT re-applying for a new visa. Hence - I say, in simplest terms it WAS ''extended". If the terminology is the problem here, I don't want to go down that rat-hole. Bottom line, non-immigrant visa(yes, I know it is the I-94 FORM) can be and was extended.