CASE: Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Senegalese
LOCATION: Baltimore, MD

Our client came to the United States with a valid F-1 student visa from Senegal in 2006.  Later, he married his current U.S. Citizen wife, and retained our office for his adjustment of status case.  We prepared his I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application, and filed the application on March 21, 2011.

However, a week before his I-130 interview, our client’s adjustment of status application was denied.  Unbeknownst to our client and us, our client was placed in removal proceeding and the Immigration Judge issued a final order against our client in 2010.  Our client was very surprised and informed our office that he never knew of his final order, his hearing, nor the fact that he was even placed in removal proceedings.

Our client never received a Notice to Appear, and as such did not know that he was in removal proceedings, did not know that had to go to Court, did not know that he had to inform the Immigration Court through Form EOIR-33 of his change of address, and ultimately did not know that he had a final order for not appearing at his 2010 hearing.  Our client asked us for help in his case and we advised him to file a Motion to Reopen in absentia order of removal.

On June 17, 2011, our office filed a Motion to Reopen with the Baltimore Immigration Court. Documentation of his address at the date of the final order, a detailed affidavit regarding his addresses and his circumstances around the final order date, documentation of the last address he provided to the immigration service prior to the final order date, and other supporting documents were submitted (39 exhibits).  However, the Department of Homeland Security filed an opposition to our Motion.  In response to the DHS’ brief, our office filed a Response to the Government’s Opposition to Motion on July 8, 2011.

On December 8, 2011, the Baltimore Immigration Court denied our motion. However, our office thought that IJ’s decision was incorrect. In response to the Court’s decision, our office filed a Motion to Reconsider on December 28, 2011. On January 31, 2012, the Baltimore Immigration Court granted our Motion to reconsider and sent our office a new hearing notice for our client. Our client now does not have the final order of removal and may seek relief with the Immigration Court, or seek termination of proceedings for CIS adjudication of 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 Motion to Reopen success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

{ 1 comment }

CASE: Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Ivorian (Cote D’Ivoire)
LOCATION: Atlanta, GA

Our client came to the United States with a valid P-1 visa from Cote D’Ivoire in 1997. Later, she married her U.S. Citizen ex-husband and her ex-husband filed an I-130 petition on her behalf. Our client also simultaneously filed an I-485 adjustment of status application.  While the petition and application were pending, our client moved to a different apartment and filed a change of address to the INS.  However, they did not receive any interview notice from the INS for two years, so they hired an immigration attorney to follow-up on their pending application.  Apparently, to no knowledge of Respondent, the INS issued an interview notice, but it was delivered to the wrong address. Only after a decade later through a file request did our client find out about the interview notice. Since our client could not appear at her interview, her adjustment application was deemed abandoned, and she was placed in removal proceedings based on her overstay.

Unfortunately, our client was not aware of the issuance of the Notice to Appear (“NTA”). Based on the file she obtained years later from her file request, the Notice to Appear (NTA) was sent by regular mail and her address was completely wrong.  Our client never lived at the address stated on the NTA and never wrote that address on any form submitted to the USCIS nor the former INS.  Our client thus never received her NTA, never knew about her being in removal proceedings nor her obligations to submit Form EOIR-33.  Because of her absence at the hearing at the Atlanta Immigration Court, the court issued an in absentia order of removal in 2001.

Our client got divorced with her ex-husband five years ago.  She married her current U.S. Citizen husband last year and contacted our office to seek legal assistance for her adjustment of status in November 2011.  After obtaining background information, we informed her that she has a final order of removal since 2001.  Our client was surprised because she actually had an attorney in 2002 to follow up on her case and she was never informed by the immigration service nor by her attorney of this final order.  She told us that she never received an NTA.  We advised her that she needs to file a Motion to Reopen in absentia order of removal.

Through a Motion to Reopen In Absentia Order of Removal, the Immigration Judge can rescind the in absentia order of removal if you are able to show that you did not receive proper notice of your hearing. If the Notice to Appear was sent to the wrong address for example, and not the last address you provided to the immigration service, then you’d have a good basis for this type of Motion to Reopen.

On December 2, 2011, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Atlanta Immigration Court. Documentation of her address at the date of the final order, a detailed affidavit regarding her addresses and the circumstances around the final order date, documentation of the last address she provided to the immigration service prior to the final order, and other supporting documents were submitted (12 exhibits). The Department of Homeland Security filed a non- opposition to our Motion. On December 13, 2011, the Atlanta Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case.  Now our client does not have a final order of removal and may seek adjustment of status relief with the Immigration Court upon approval of an I-130, or seek termination of proceedings for the CIS to adjudicate her green card application also upon approval of her I-130.

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 Motion to Reopen 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 }

CASE:  Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Pakistani
LOCATION: Houston, TX

Our client is a Pakistani citizen who currently resides in Houston, Texas with her U.S. Citizen husband.  Our client entered the United States on a valid L-2 visa in November 2000.  She was  then granted withholding of removal in July 2006 by the Philadelphia Immigration Court as a derivative beneficiary of her father’s sought relief.  In March 2009, our client married her U.S. citizen husband and her husband filed an I-130 petition on behalf of our client.  The I-130 petition was approved in October, 2010.  However, due to bad advice by their previous counsel, they also filed an I-485 application with the USCIS which was understandably denied due to lack of jurisdiction considering she is in withholding of removal status.  They were not informed that our client’s case should first be reopened in the Immigration Court before she can apply for adjustment of status either with the Court, or with the CIS should proceedings be terminated after reopening.

In March 2011, our client and her U.S. citizen husband contacted our office and sought legal assistance for her immigration matters. Our client retained us on March 29, 2011.  Upon retention, we filed a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen to the USICE-DHS office in Philadelphia.  Our cover brief explained the withholding of removal status, the approval of the I-130, and other equitable factors totaling 28 exhibits.

We called the DHS office in Philadelphia several times and on November 23, 2011, they finally agreed to join in the Motion to Reopen and an assigned counsel signed the Joint Motion. Now our client can apply for Adjustment of Status with the Immigration Court, or with the CIS upon a possible termination by the Court.

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 success stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }

Case: Motion to Reopen / Terminate with the Immigration Court
Nationality: Chinese
Location: Newark, NJ

Our client had a final order of exclusion from the Newark Immigration Court in 1992. He was considered an arriving alien, was inspected by the DHS officer, and was paroled into the United States.  Despite his final order of exclusion, our client remained in the United States and eventually married his U.S. Citizen spouse.  In 2008, this client ultimately obtained his permanent residency through adjustment of status with the USCIS as an arriving alien.

After he obtained his permanent residency, he retained our office to terminate his final order of exclusion.  Since he had a final order of exclusion from the Newark Immigration Court, our office filed a Sua Sponte Motion to Reopen and Terminate to the Newark Immigration Court on September 13, 2011.  In the Motion, we contended that our client’s case should be re-opened and terminated since our client already obtained his permanent residency.  Our client wanted his order of exclusion terminated to avoid potential issues or confusion with the immigration service, such as when he travels abroad and comes back through one of the port of entries.  We also noted that Respondent is not disputing the validity of his permanent resident card, but asked for removal proceedings to be terminated.

As a result, the Newark Immigration Court granted our Sua Sponte Motion to Reopen and Terminate on October 3, 2011. Our client now does not have a final order of exclusion on his records.

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 Motion to Reopen and Terminate success stories, please click here and here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Motion to Reopen and Rescind an In Absentia Order of Removal Based on Exceptional Circumstances
CLIENT: Moldovan
LOCATION: Baltimore, Maryland

Our Moldovan client came to the United States in 2008 with a J-1 visa.  Her ex-husband filed for asylum and she was a derivative applicant for this asylum application. After the application was filed, our client attended all necessary appointments related to her immigration applications.  She went to the CIS office to do her fingerprinting, and attended her asylum interview at the Arlington Asylum office.  Our client also attended her first Master Calendar hearing on March 2010 after her ex- husband’s asylum case was referred to the Baltimore Immigration Court.  Eventually, Respondent and her ex-husband’s individual hearing dates were scheduled on May 19, 2011.

Due to marital difficulties between our client and her ex-husband, her previous lawyer filed a Motion to Deconsolidate in October 2010.  Since our client was a derivative asylum applicant with her ex-husband, the Motion stated that she had her own independent grounds for seeking asylum relief.  Nonetheless, since she filed the Motion to Deconsolidate, she never got a response from her previous attorney nor the Court regarding the possible deconsolidation.

From May 16, 2011 to May 24, 2011, our client was in a great deal of pain with headaches, fever, and other symptoms that resulted from the extraction of her tooth on April 30, 2011.  On the days leading up to the hearings, our client got very sick, including May 19, 2011, the individual hearing date. Thus she did not appear before the Court on her individual hearing date.

She later learned about her order of removal on August 3, 2011.  On that day, the divorce between our client and her ex-husband was finalized.  When our client met her ex-husband, he informed her that she was ordered removed on May 19, 2011 because of her absence at the hearing. Her ex-husband was in that hearing and actually won his asylum case. Once she learned about the order of removal, she immediately contacted her previous attorney and explained to him that she was not able to attend her hearing due to illness.  Our client never received anything pertaining to her order of removal.  She intended to attend Court on May 19, 2011 but was too sick to do so.

Our client contacted and retained our office on August 15, 2011 for the Motion to Reopen and Rescind her in absentia order.  After listening to her reasons and learning the surrounding circumstances pertaining to her non-appearance in Court, our office determined that the Immigration Court will most likely grant our client’s Motion to Rescind an in absentia order based on exceptional circumstances.

We contended that our client could not attend at the hearing due to her medical condition and her absence was inevitable due to her sickness.  Our office included supporting documents such as a doctor’s letter, copies of her medical prescriptions, a letter from her employer stating her absence from work around the time of the Individual Hearing, etc.  Our office filed the Motion on August 18, 2011 within the statutory time frame.  The DHS, however, opposed our Motion, so we filed a response on August 31, 2011.   On September 20, 2011, the Baltimore Immigration Court granted our client’s Motion and rescinded the order of removal.  Our client’s case is re-opened, and she can now pursue her asylum claim.

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 motion to reopen success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Motion to Reopen

CLIENT: Nigerian

COURT LOCATION: Baltimore, Maryland

RESIDENCE: Brooklyn, NY

Our client was a legal entry overstay, married to his U.S. Citizen wife. Prior to retaining our firm, he went to his I-130 and adjustment of status interview only to find out that he had a final order many years ago. He did not know about it. He was told by the officer that he had to reopen his case. We met the client at our New York office and he retained us on August 2010 for the Motion to Reopen.

If you do not go to your scheduled hearing with the Immigration Court, regardless of the reason, you will on that day have an in absentia order of removal. Once this is triggered, you are susceptible to being detained and subsequently deported by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

A lot of people have different reasons for not going to Court. Some did not know what to do. Some did not know the repercussions of not going to Court and did not go. Some were sick or got into an accident earlier that day. Some did not receive notice of the hearing and did not know about it.

To rescind the final order, one has to get his case reopened. This is done through a Motion to Reopen filed with the Immigration Judge who gave the final order. When you have an in absentia order of removal and a Motion to Reopen based on lack of notice is filed on your behalf, your deportation is also stayed. This means that while this motion is pending, the DHS cannot deport you.

Based on this Motion to Reopen, the Immigration Judge can rescind the in absentia order of removal if you are able to show that you did not receive proper notice of the hearing. If the Notice to Appear was sent to the wrong address for example, and not the last address you provided to the immigration service, then there’s a good basis for a Motion to Reopen.

On August 31, 2010, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Baltimore Immigration Court. Documentation of his address at the date of the final order, a detailed 4-page affidavit regarding his addresses and his circumstances around the final order date, documentation of the last address he provided to the immigration service prior to the final order date, and other supporting documents were submitted. The Department of Homeland Security did not file an opposition or response to our Motion. On November 8, 2010, our office called the Court to follow up and we were informed that the Motion was granted. Our client now does not have the final order of removal and may seek relief with the Immigration Court, or seek termination of proceedings for CIS adjudication of 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. 

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: Motion to Reopen In Absentia Order of Removal

CLIENT: Mexican

LOCATION: Atlanta, Georgia

Our client was detained for being without status. He entered the country illegally over 10 years ago. Upon release with a bond he gave his proper address and the immigration service also had the address of his bond obligor. He and the obligor kept following up with immigration regarding his next hearing since he never received anything in the mail. On his next Order of Supervision appointment in September 9, 2010 (an regular appointment with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement to make sure you have not escaped), immigration told our client that he is deportable and that he has a final order for not showing up at the Atlanta Immigration Court on August 24, 2010. The rule is that if you don’t show up for Court, you will automatically have a final order of removal. Your only recourse if available is to file a Motion to Reopen. In this case the Motion was based on the fact that he never got the Notice to Appear nor his hearing notice. Our firm was consulted and we told him that we have to file a Motion to Reopen as soon as possible. We were immediately retained and on September 17, 2010, we filed a Motion to Reopen with the Atlanta Immigration Court. We argued that he never got notice of his hearing, was prima facie eligible to apply for Cancellation of Removal, filed within 1 month of the final order, showed up at his order of supervision, was prompt in retaining counsel, and that he had residence in Georgia and was not a flight risk. On October 4, 2010, the Immigration Judge in Atlanta granted our Motion. His final order is now lifted and thus won’t be deportable as of now. He would have an opportunity to apply for Cancellation of Removal with the Immigration Court.

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

{ Comments on this entry are closed }