CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

NATIONALITY: Peruvian

LOCATION: Big Sky, MT

Our client is from Peru who came to the U.S. on a J-1 exchange visitor’s visa in December 2019. His J-1 program was not subject to the 2 year foreign residency requirement. In June 2020, our client married his U.S. citizen wife.  He retained our office for his green card application on June 15, 2020.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on June 26, 2020.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients via conference calls. On November 16, 2021, our client was interviewed at the Helena, Montana USCIS office. On the same day of his interview, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization)

APPLICANT: Peruvian

LOCATION: Broadview Heights, OH

Our client contacted us in August 2019 to seek legal representation for his naturalization and citizenship N-400 application. He came to the United States from Peru and obtained his green card in July 2010. 

Upon retention, his N-400 application was filed on September 5, 2019 with all supporting documents. Prior to his citizenship interview, our office prepared him at our office.  On November 15, 2019, our client appeared at the USCIS Cleveland Ohio USCIS office for his naturalization interview. Our client answered all questions correctly and passed his naturalization and citizenship interview. Eventually, on November 19, 2019, his application was approved. His oath taking is scheduled in which he will become a naturalized U.S. Citizen.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

NATIONALITY: Peruvian                                                                                                        

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH
Our client is from Peru who came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitor’s visa in September 2016.  In December 2016, our client married his current U.S. citizen wife.  He retained our office in December 2016 for his green card application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on December 20 2016.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permit all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients at our office as well. On April 3, 2017, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland Ohio USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our clients. Eventually, on April 21, 2017, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Peruvian

LOCATION: Dallas, TX

Our client came to the United States in July 2009 with a B-2 Visitor’s visa from Peru. Later, she married a U.S. Citizen in June 2014 and retained our office for her petition and adjustment of status application.

She also asked us to file her son’s (Petitioner’s step-son) adjustment of status application.

Once retained, our firm prepared and filed the I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application on September 22, 2014. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. There were no requests for evidence.

Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients through conference calls. On September 15, 2015, our clients were interviewed at the Dallas (Irving), Texas USCIS office. On the same day, our client and her son’s green card applications were approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Adjustment of Status (I-485) / BIA Motion to Reopen and Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition

CLIENT: Peruvian

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client is from Peru who came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitor’s visa in July 2002 with his family. When he came to the United States, he was an only a minor.

Later, his father filed for asylum and withholding of removal, but the Immigration Judge in Cleveland denied all applications for relief in February 2010. Accordingly, our client’s asylum relief (our client was a derivate applicant of his father’s asylum application) was denied as well.

His father filed an appeal to the BIA, but in May 2012, the Board affirmed the Immigration Judge’s findings and dismissed the appeal. Unfortunately, our client’s father was deported soon after the BIA appeal was dismissed.

Our client remained in the United States despite the final order of removal. He was under order of supervision.

He married his current U.S. citizen wife in September 2012, and he inquired on whether he has any viable option for his immigration status.  After careful review, our office determined that we can file a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen based on the I-130 approval and Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum. Our client retained our office on September 11, 2012.

Once retained, our client’s wife filed the I-130 petition for our client on September 18, 2012. Our office prepared and filed the petition. The I-130 interview was scheduled and prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients at our office. On March 5, 2013, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied them as well. Eventually, on April 17, 2013, the I-130 petition was approved.

While the I-130 was pending, our office also filed a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen and Terminate to the Cleveland DHS office on October 1, 2012. Our office prepared an extensive brief along with multiple supporting documents to request a favorable exercise of DHS’s discretion on this case. We argued that DHS should consider the following factors as set forth in Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum: (1) whether adjustment of status was available at the prior hearing; (2) whether the alien is statutorily eligible for adjustment of status; and (3) whether the alien merits a favorable exercise of discretion. Bo Cooper, Motions to Reopen for Consideration of Adjustment of Status (May 17, 2001). In considering these factors, as delineated in William J. Howard’s October 24, 2005, Memorandum, “Where a motion to reopen for adjustment of status… is filed on behalf of an alien with substantial equities, no serious criminal or immigration violations, and who is legally eligible to be granted relief except that the motion is beyond the 90-day limitation contained in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23, strongly consider exercising prosecutorial discretion and join in this motion to reopen to permit the alien to pursue such relief to the immigration court.” William J. Howard, Prosecutorial Discretion (October 24, 2005).

Our office argued that if our client’s case is reopened, he will be prima facie eligible to adjust his status. Our client has been living in the United States since 2002, has no criminal record, was a minor at the time of the entry to the U.S., and has an approved I-130 petition.

As a result, the DHS office agreed to join in our Motion to Reopen and Terminate. The DHS filed the joint motion to the BIA in September 2013. Finally, the BIA ordered our client’s case to be reopened and terminated our client’s case on November 26, 2013. Once his case was terminated he retained our office again for his I-485 adjustment of status application.

Our firm prepared and filed the Adjustment of Status Application and the Employment Authorization Document on February 24, 2014.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time.

Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our client at our office. On June 24, 2014, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, OH USCIS.  Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office also accompanied our client as well. On the same day, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: BIA Motion to Reopen and Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition

CLIENT: Peruvian
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client is from Peru who came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitor’s visa in July 2002 with his family. When he came to the United States, he was a only a minor.

Later, his father filed for asylum and withholding of removal, but the Immigration Judge in Cleveland denied all applications for relief in February 2010. Accordingly, our client’s asylum relief (our client was a derivate applicant of his father’s asylum application) was denied as well.

His father filed an appeal to the BIA, but in May 2012, the Board affirmed the Immigration Judge’s findings and dismissed the appeal. Unfortunately, our client’s father was deported soon after the BIA appeal was dismissed.

Our client remained in the United States despite the final order of removal. He was under order of supervision. He married his current U.S. citizen wife in September 2012, and he inquired on whether he has any viable option for his immigration status.  After careful review, our office determined that we can file a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen based on the I-130 approval and Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum. Our client retained our office on September 11, 2012.

Once retained, our client’s wife filed the I-130 petition for our client on September 18, 2012. Our office prepared and filed the petition. The I-130 interview was scheduled and prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients at our office. On March 5, 2013, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied them as well. Eventually, on April 17, 2013, the I-130 petition was approved.

While the I-130 was pending, our office also filed Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen and Terminate to the Cleveland DHS office on October 1, 2012. Our office prepared an extensive brief along with multiple supporting documents to request a favorable exercise of DHS’s discretion on this case. We argued that DHS should consider the following factors as set forth in Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum: (1) whether adjustment of status was available at the prior hearing; (2) whether the alien is statutorily eligible for adjustment of status; and (3) whether the alien merits a favorable exercise of discretion. Bo Cooper, Motions to Reopen for Consideration of Adjustment of Status (May 17, 2001). In considering these factors, as delineated in William J. Howard’s October 24, 2005, Memorandum, “Where a motion to reopen for adjustment of status… is filed on behalf of an alien with substantial equities, no serious criminal or immigration violations, and who is legally eligible to be granted relief except that the motion is beyond the 90-day limitation contained in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23, strongly consider exercising prosecutorial discretion and join in this motion to reopen to permit the alien to pursue such relief to the immigration court.” William J. Howard, Prosecutorial Discretion (October 24, 2005).

Our office argued that if our client’s case is reopened, he will be prima facie eligible to adjust his status. Our client has been living in the United States since 2002, has no criminal record, was a minor at the time of the entry to the U.S., and has an approved I-130 petition.

As a result, the DHS office agreed to join in our Motion to Reopen and Terminate. The DHS filed the joint motion to the BIA in September 2013. Finally, the BIA ordered our client’s case to be reopened and terminated our client’s case on November 26, 2013. Now, he can file an I-485 adjustment of status application to the USCIS for his permanent residency.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Cancellation of Removal for Permanent Residents
CLIENT: Peruvian (Green card holder / detained)
LOCATION: Cleveland Immigration Court in Ohio

Our client came to the United States in 1992 when he was a child. Through INA Section 245i, he got his green card in 2001. He has been in the US ever since. His brother and mother are both US Citizens.

Unfortunately he was convicted of certain crimes over the past decade. He had domestic violence, theft, DUI, and violation of protection order convictions. Because of these the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) picked him up and detained him in August of this year. He was not eligible for a bond due to his criminal convictions. He was also removable on three grounds due to those convictions.

Our client’s friends and family members contacted our office in late August for legal representation. We were retained on August 27, 2012. The case at the onset was tough. He was not married to a US Citizen. He had US Citizen kids but they don’t live with him. He had family in the US, a US citizen brother and mother, but they both reside in New Jersey. His grounds for removability were also based on three grounds. His only relief was Cancellation of Removal. It was going to be a tough case. We knew it and he knew it.

Prior to his hearing, we visited our client twice in jail. Over the course of the entire representation, our firm’s attorneys visited our client more than five times. Our client appeared at his master calendar hearing at the Cleveland Immigration Court in Ohio via televideo from the detention facility and Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu represented him at the hearing and sought cancellation of removal relief for permanent residents.

Under INA Section 240A(a), for a permanent resident to be eligible for Cancellation of Removal, the alien must prove that s/he:

• Has been an LPR (green card holder) for at least five years;
• Has resided in the United States continuously for seven years after having been admitted in any status;
• Has not been convicted of an aggravated felony; and
• Merits a favorable exercise of discretion.

The criteria for favorable exercise of discretion was explained in Matter of C-V-T-, 22 I&N Dec. 7 (BIA 1998). The BIA in C-V-T stated that the factors that the immigration judge must consider when deciding whether to grant cancellation of removal to a lawful permanent resident are as follows:

The positive factors are:
• family ties in the United States, particularly ties to lawful permanent residents or U.S. citizens;
• residence of long duration in the U.S. (particularly when the inception of residence occurred at a young age);
• evidence of hardship to the Respondent and his family if deportation occurs;
• service in the U.S. armed forces;
• a history of employment;
• existence of property or business ties;
• evidence of value and service to the community;
• proof of genuine rehabilitation if a criminal record exists;
• other evidence attesting to a Respondent’s good character.

Adverse factors include:

• nature and underlying circumstances of the grounds of removal;
• the presence of additional significant violations of the Immigration Laws;
• the nature, recency, and seriousness of criminal records; and
• the presence of other evidence has been indicative of a respondent’s bad character or undesirability as a permanent resident of the U.S.

Generally, the immigration judge must weigh the positive factors against the negative factors in exercising her discretion.

After the Master Calendar Hearing, the Court scheduled the individual hearing date on October 17, 2012.

Our firm worked with our client and his friends and family members for the application and supplemental documents. We contacted his family members in other states for supporting documents and letters of support for our client’s case.

In preparing our client for the Individual Hearing, Attorney Yu visited our client multiple times at the Bedford Heights detention facility, meeting for several hours each time. Obviously the central issue in this case would be whether or not our client’s positive factors outweigh the negative factors. Our firm eventually was able to gather supporting documents and prepared supplemental evidence with multiple exhibits, and arranged them pursuant to the specific elements of Cancellation of Removal eligibility.

At the Individual Hearing on October 17, 2012, Attorney Yu represented our client at the Cleveland Immigration Court. Testimony then followed and we questioned our client extensively on the positive factors of his case. Attorney Yu questioned him regarding his length of residence in the U.S., employment history, educational history, family issues and hardships to him and his family members if he was to be deported to Peru. Our client was prepared, was very consistent, and was honest in his answers. The extensive questioning and detailed testimony of our client took so much time that the hearing had to be continued.

On November 2, 2012, our client’s Individual Hearing was resumed. The government counsel did extensive cross-examination regarding our client’s criminal history and other issues. Also, some of our client’s family members and friends testified as witnesses.

During the closing argument, Attorney Yu argued why our client merits a favorable exercise of discretion according to the C-V-T- factors. The government of course focused on the negative factors in his case, those issues which we mentioned at the start of this success story.

In the end, the Cleveland Immigration Court granted our client’s cancellation of removal relief. It was a tough call and our firm was very happy for our client. He has been here since 1992 but had a few bumps along the way. He has reformed, will finish his studies, and will continue supporting his kids. It was obviously an emotional moment as his mom, aunt, grandmother, and friends were in Court.

He soon will be released, and he will get back his green card.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

For other Cancellation of Removal success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }