CASE: I-485 Approval
CLIENT: Ghanaian
LOCATION: Phoenix, AZ

Our client is a Ghanaian citizen who came to the U.S. on a B-2 Visitor Visa in February 2004. As our previous success story explained, our client had a final order of removal in absentia, but his case was reopened after our office’s successful Motion to Reopen in April 2012.

Our client and his wife married in August 2007 and they have two U.S. citizen children now.

Our office immediately filed an I-130 Petition with bona fide marriage evidence on March 12, 2012. The I-130 petition was approved on August 20, 2012 without an interview. Our client appeared at the Phoenix Immigration Court on August 21, 2012 for his initial master calendar hearing. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office represented him at the hearing, did pleadings and sought adjustment of status relief.

After the I-130 was approved, our office filed a Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings with the I-485 application and supporting documents to the Phoenix Immigration Court. The DHS counsel in Phoenix did not oppose the Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings without prejudice on October 15, 2012.

After his case was terminated by the Immigration Court, our office prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on November 24, 2012, together with other necessary forms and supporting documents. 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 over the conference all.

On January 28, 2013, our client was interviewed at the Phoenix CIS office. Our client was fully prepared at the interview went well.  On the same day, his green card application was approved.

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 marriage based green card success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

<a href=”https://plus.google.com/107743308565341841259?rel=author”>Google</a>

<a href=”https://plus.google.com/109631653288081090975″ rel=”publisher”>Google+</a>

{ 0 comments }

The United States Republican and Democratic senators already got the outline of a broad immigration reform that would determine the fate of thousands of illegal immigrants in the country. One of the things included is a path to “earned legalization” for the immigrants.

Senators like Sens. John McCain and Robert Menendez have expressed their shared views on finding better solutions for those around 11 million people in the U.S. with illegal status. A comprehensive package of immigration reforms by a bipartisan group of six senators is revealed to be doing significant progress. This progress will be a good follow-up to the immigration reforms plans President Obama is expected to unveil in Las Vegas.

Some of the senators, even those who are not in the bipartisan group, are also optimistic about the compromise the parties are doing in order to attain a comprehensive law on immigration that the country can live with.

Source: Los Angeles Times

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

<a href=”https://plus.google.com/107743308565341841259?rel=author”>Google</a>

<a href=”https://plus.google.com/109631653288081090975″ rel=”publisher”>Google+</a>

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Bond Redetermination Hearing
APPLICANT: Chinese
LOCATION: Florence Immigration Court AZ

Our office was contacted in December of 2012 regarding one Chinese person who was detained in Florence, Arizona. He tried to enter the United States without valid documents and was incarcerated by immigration officers.

Prior to retention, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement set a bond amount of $15,000.  Our client wished to have that reduced so we filed a motion for bond redetermination with the Florence Immigration Court in Arizona.  Our office communicated with him and his U.S. resident relative in New York, and gathered as much information regarding his relief, equities, criminal record, family ties, and financial ability to post bond.  We also gathered supporting documents from our client’s relatives, from proof of their status and residence, to bank statements and tax returns.

On January 11, 2013, we represented our client at his Florence Arizona Immigration Court bond re-determination hearing.  During the bond re-determination hearing, we explained to the Court that our client already passed his credible fear interview, was not a flight risk, had established his residence upon release, had established his financial ability to post bond, and that he had ample family ties in the United States who submitted proof of his residence and immigration status.  Moreover, our office explained that his lack of criminal record, designated address with contact information from his relative in the United States, ability to post bond, and eligibility for asylum relief clearly demonstrate that the bond should be reduced.  At the end of the hearing, the Immigration Judge took our arguments into account and reduced the bond amount to only $6000.

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 jail case success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

<a href=”https://plus.google.com/107743308565341841259?rel=author”>Google</a>

<a href=”https://plus.google.com/109631653288081090975″ rel=”publisher”>Google+</a>

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-821D Application for Consideration for Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals / I-765 Employment Authorization Document

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Chinese Client in Cleveland, OH

As our office explained before on our website, the USCIS issued a memorandum in August 2012 regarding deferred action of childhood arrivals cases (DACA). According to the USCIS Deferred Action Memorandum issued in August 2012, an individual who meets the following criteria may apply for deferred action:

• Was under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
• Came to the U.S. before reaching his/her 16th birthday;
• Has continuously resided in the U.S. since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;
• Was physically present in the U.S. on June 15, 2012, and at the time of application to the USCIS;
• Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012;
• Is currently in school, has graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, has obtained a GED, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard or the U.S. Armed Forces; and
• Has not been convicted of a felony, a “significant misdemeanor,” three or more other misdemeanors, or does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety;

Our client initially came to the United States in March 2000 without admission and inspection by the CBP officers when she was only 15 years old.  As of June 15, 2012, our client was twenty-eight (27) years old. Our client was able to enroll in high school in 2001, but she did not finish.  However, she is currently enrolled in the ABLE program and she goes to class at the local high school in the Cleveland area.  Also, since her last entry to the United States in March 2000, our client never left the United States.

She was physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012 and has continuously resided here since March of 2000. Moreover, our client has never been convicted of a felony, a “significant misdemeanor,” three or more other misdemeanors, and does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Our client retained us on August 15, 2012. We informed her of all supporting documents we would need. Our client and her family members sent us supporting documents that proved our client’s education history, physical presence in the United States, and her initial entry to the United States. Our office also prepared Form I-821D and I-765, and drafted a detailed cover letter demonstrating why our client should merit this relief.

On October 9, 2012, our office filed her I-821D and I-765 to the USCIS. Our client went to the ASC Appointment (Biometric appointment) at the Cleveland, OH USCIS office on November 1, 2012. On December 13, 2012, the USCIS approved our client’s I-821D and I-765, good for two years.

Our client can now work and study in the United States lawfully.

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 deportation related success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

Google

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Motion to Reopen

CLIENT: Central African Republic

LOCATION: Cincinnati, OH

Our client came to the United States from the Central Republic of Africa in 2004.  One month after, he filed for asylum with the USCIS.  He was interviewed at the CIS office, but his asylum application was referred to the Cleveland Immigration Court.  He went to his first hearing in Cleveland, and appeared at his previous master hearings as well.

He went to his last hearing in September 2010 in Cleveland Ohio where he both submitted a Form EOIR-33 (change of address) and was given an Individual Hearing date of January 9, 2013.

Our client moved a few months later but did not submit another EOIR-33. He did write his new address when he renewed his work permit though and submitted an AR-11 with the CIS.

Our client has always renewed his work permit application since 2005 and has reported his current address at those applications.

Last August, he applied for his work permit renewal with his new address, but his work permit renewal got denied.  The denial stated that our client’s case was abandoned when he missed his hearing on January 26, 2012.

This was the first time that our client learned of the final order.  In fact, he was under the assumption that his next hearing was on January 9, 2013.

Our client was surprised and contacted our office for legal assistance. We advised him that we can file a Motion to Reopen in absentia order of removal.

To rescind the final order, he has to get his case reopened. This is done through a Motion to Reopen filed with the Immigration Judge who gave the final order.  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 or hearing notice 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 November 8, 2012, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Cleveland 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 and to the Immigration Court prior to the final order date, and other supporting documents were submitted (9 exhibits).

On December 10, 2012, the Cleveland Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case.  Our client now does not have the final order of removal and may continue to seek his relief under asylum with the Immigration Court. He may also renew his work permit as the asylum clock resumed.

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 deportation success stories, please click here.

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.

<a href=”https://plus.google.com/107743308565341841259/posts?rel=author”>Google</a>

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen with the DHS

CLIENT: Chinese

LOCATION: New York, NY

Our client came to the United States from China with valid B-2 visitor’s visa in 1996. Within one year of his entry, he filed an I-589 Application for Asylum.

In January 1998, our client had his asylum interview in Rosedale, New York. After the interview, his asylum application was referred to the New York Immigration Court and the Notice to Appear was issued for our client.

Respondent attended his first hearing, but missed his second hearing in December 1998. Respondent said he did not know of his second hearing, and that his attorney never informed him of such. Thus, he missed it.

Our client has remained in the U.S. ever since to take care and raise his U.S. Citizen daughter. He was with his wife who is now a lawful permanent resident.  Over the past decade, his wife had suffered from several medical issues.

Our client then became the beneficiary of an approved I-130 petition filed by his U.S. Citizen daughter. However, he could not adjust his status based on this I-130 petition due to his final order of removal.

Prior to retaining our office, our client tried to reopen his case with the Immigration Court through two other immigration lawyers in New York; however, both were not successful.

We reviewed his case and informed him that reopening will be tough because previous lawyers have tried twice and were denied. We told him that if we were to do it, we plan to emphasize the medical hardships of his wife and also technically address the ineffective assistance of counsel issue, by having him do all necessary steps, from the bar complaint, to proper notification, and others. He agreed.

On December 8, 2011, our client retained our office to do another Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen.

Once retained, our office extensively prepared and gathered documents for our client’s request to join in a Motion to Reopen with the DHS.  As set for forth in Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum, in determining whether to join in a Motion to Reopen, the INS (now the DHS) should consider the following factors: (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.

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. Section 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.”

Thus, we argued that if our client’s case is reopened, he will be prima facie eligible to adjust his status.  In our brief, we argued that our client had substantial equities considering the medical records of his wife and legal status of both his wife and daughter.

Our client had no criminal records and his immigration violation was for overstaying his legal entry.  Despite his overstay, our client still filed for asylum within one year of his entry to the United States. We pointed out that our client was not informed of his immigration hearing due to the ineffective assistance of his previous immigration counsel. We also pointed out that his daughter is a world class pianist who has perfumed in several prestigious events.

On July 11, 2012, our office filed the Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen to the Office of Chief Counsel in New York, NY.  In an 11-page brief, we pointed out several factors from his detailed affidavit regarding his immigration history and equities. Several affidavits from his family members were also included.

We also included over 200 pages of supporting documents to show his wife’s medical issues, his prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status if his case was reopened, and Lozada compliance documents.

On December 4, 2012, after two tries by our client with two other lawyers, the New York DHS-ICE office agreed to join in the motion to reopen for the sole purpose of having the Court terminate the case without prejudice to allow our client to seek adjustment of status.

Now, our client’s case can be reopened and terminated in Court. He then can file for adjustment of status based on the approved I-130 filed by his U.S. Citizen daughter.

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 deportation success stories, please click here.

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.

<a href=”https://plus.google.com/107743308565341841259/posts?rel=author”>Google</a>

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-821D Application for Consideration for Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals / I-765 Employment Authorization Document

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Filipino Client in Virginia

As our office explained before on our website, the USCIS issued a memorandum in August 2012 regarding deferred action of childhood arrivals cases (DACA). According to the USCIS Deferred Action Memorandum issued in August 2012, an individual who meets the following criteria may apply for deferred action:

• Was under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
• Came to the U.S. before reaching his/her 16th birthday;
• Has continuously resided in the U.S. since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;
• Was physically present in the U.S. on June 15, 2012, and at the time of application to the USCIS;
• Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012;
• Is currently in school, has graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, has obtained a GED, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard or the U.S. Armed Forces; and
• Has not been convicted of a felony, a “significant misdemeanor,” three or more other misdemeanors, or does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety;

Our client initially came to the United States in April 2000 with a valid H-4 visa as a derivative of an H-1B visa holder when he was only 15 years old.

As of June 15, 2012, our client was twenty-eight (28) years old.

Our client also finished high school and college in the United States.

Also, since his last entry to the United States in April 2000, our client never left the United States.

He was physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012 and has continuously resided here since April of 2000.

Our client has never been convicted of a felony, a “significant misdemeanor,” three or more other misdemeanors, and does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Our client retained us on August 28, 2012. We informed him of all supporting documents we would need. Our client and his family members sent us supporting documents that proved our client’s education history, physical presence in the United States, and his initial entry to the United States. Our office also prepared Form I-821D and I-765, and drafted a detailed cover letter demonstrating why our client should merit this relief.

On September, 2012, our office filed his I-821D and I-765 to the USCIS. Our client went to the ASC Appointment (Biometric appointment) at the Alexandria, Virginia USCIS office on October 17, 2012. On December 4, 2012, the USCIS approved our client’s I-821D and I-765, good for two years.

Our client can now work and study in the United States lawfully.

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 deportation related success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

<a href=”https://plus.google.com/107743308565341841259/posts?rel=author”>Google</a>

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings Based on Criminal Conviction Dismissal

CLIENT: Croatian

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client is a Croatian citizen and who has been a green card holder in the United States for more than 10 years. His parents and sister are all US Citizens.

However, he was placed in removal proceedings in July 2012 due to his previous criminal convictions, specifically drug-related offenses. He had two possession of drug paraphernalia convictions, a conviction for drug abuse due to heroin, and a marijuana conviction. He was thus removable due at least one controlled substance violation.

He was picked up by ICE officers and was detained.  Our client’s family member contacted us in early August to seek legal assistance and representation at his removal proceedings.  Our office was retained on August 3, 2012.

Based on his removable charges, there was no available relief for our client except relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Respondent wished to apply for CAT.

We then asked our client whether he was advised before he pled guilty for his charges at his previous criminal hearings. Our client told us that he did not receive any advisement as required by Ohio criminal statutes.

Under Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2003), the BIA held that “If a court with jurisdiction vacates a conviction based on a defect in underlying criminal proceedings, the Respondent no longer has a ‘conviction’ within the meaning of section 101(a)(48)(A).”

According to O.R.C Section 2943.031, the court must ask the following before the defendant entered the plea: “If you are not a citizen of the United States you are hereby advised that conviction of the offense to which you are pleading guilty (or no contest, when applicable) may have the consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States.”

As stated above, our client told us that he never had the aforementioned advisement from the court before he pled guilty to his charges.  Thus, we contacted our client’s previous criminal attorney to file Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea and Vacate Conviction based on a defect in underlying criminal proceedings – that of having a lack of advisement or lack of substantial compliance with the advisement provisions of O.R.C. Section 2943.031 from the criminal courts.

By November 9, 2012, the courts involved vacated and dismissed the two drug paraphernalia convictions and the heroin / drug abuse conviction. He thus only has one conviction for marijuana possession left. There was no evidence that the amount of marijuana involved was over 30 grams.

With that, our office filed a Motion to Terminate Proceedings to the Immigration Court and argued that our client is not removable anymore because the respective courts have vacated his plea and dismissed his convictions based on a defect in underlying criminal proceedings. We cited the law that provides that he is not removable based on a single conviction of marijuana possession if the amount involved is 30 grams or less. Since it’s the government’s burden to show removability, and since there was no evidence of the amount of marijuana involved, despite this conviction he was not removable anymore.

We included the criminal court judges’ orders and other supporting documents, including, when necessary, a certified copy of the motion filed by the criminal attorney (the government sometimes wants to see this to make sure the dismissal was not for immigration purposes, but based on a lack of advisement) and argued that our client’s removal proceedings must be terminated.

On November 28, 2012, on the day of our client’s Individual Hearing, the Immigration Judge granted our Motion to Terminate Proceedings.

Our client is now released. He got his green card back and can continuously reside in the United States.

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 deportation success stories, please click here.

For other termination success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

<a href=”https://plus.google.com/107743308565341841259/posts?rel=author”>Google</a>

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Adjustment of Status / Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition
CLIENT: Chinese
LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio (EOIR) / Columbus, Ohio (USCIS)

Our client is a Chinese citizen who came to the U.S. on a B-2 Visitor’s Visa in June 2010.  She remained in the United States after her authorized stay expired.  Because of her overstay, she was placed in removal proceedings, which was initiated at the San Francisco Immigration Court in California.

Our client married his second husband in December 2011 in Columbus Ohio. She initially contacted our office for a Change of Venue to Cleveland.  She retained our office on October 20, 2011.  We then filed a Motion for Change of Venue from San Francisco to Cleveland on behalf of our client. The Immigration Judge granted the Motion and her case was transferred to the Cleveland Immigration Court.

Our office then prepared and filed an I-130 Petition with a lot of bona fide marriage evidence on December 9, 2011. The petition also included a bona fide marriage exception letter.

While the I-130 petition was pending, our client appeared at the Cleveland Immigration Court on April 11, 2012 for her initial master calendar hearing. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office represented her at the hearing, did pleadings and sought adjustment of status relief upon approval of the I-130 petition.

Our client’s I-130 interview was scheduled on June 19, 2012 at the Columbus USCIS Field Office. Prior to the interview, our office thoroughly prepared our client and his husband for the interview. Attorney JP Sarmiento also accompanied them at their interview. The interview lasted one hour, our clients were separated, but the I-130 petition was eventually approved on the same day.

After the I-130 was approved, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to Terminate proceedings with an attached I-485 application and its supporting documents. The DHS counsel in Cleveland agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Eventually, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice on August 15, 2012.

After her case was terminated with the Immigration Court, our office prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on September 4, 2012, together with other necessary forms and supporting documents. 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 over the phone.

On November 15, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Baltimore CIS office. Our client was fully prepared and the interview went well.  On the same day, her green card application was approved.

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 termination deportation case success stories, please click here.

For other marriage green card success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

<a href=”https://plus.google.com/107743308565341841259/posts?rel=author”>Google</a>

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-485 Approval
CLIENT: Senegalese
LOCATION:Baltimore,MD

Our client is a Senegalese citizen who came to the U.S.on an F-1 Student Visa in August 2006 to study at a college in Maryland. As our previous success story explained, our client had a final order of removal in absentia, but his case was reopened after our office’s successful Motion to Reopen in January 2012.

Our client and his wife married in October 2010, and retained our office on March 3, 2011. Our office immediately filed an I-130 Petition with bona fide marriage evidence on March 23, 2011. While the I-130 petition was pending, our client appeared at the Baltimore Immigration Court on February 15, 2012 for his initial master calendar hearing. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office represented him at the hearing, did pleadings and sought adjustment of status relief upon approval of the I-130 petition.

Our client’s I-130 interview was scheduled on May 4, 2012 at Baltimore USCIS Field Office. Prior to the interview, our office thoroughly prepared our client and his wife rough conference call. Attorney Yu also accompanied them for their interview. The interview lasted more than one hour, but the I-130 petition was eventually approved on the same day.

After the I-130 was approved, our office filed a Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings with the I-485 application and supporting documents to the Baltimore Immigration Court. The DHS counsel in Baltimore did not oppose the Motion to Terminate. The Immigration Judge granted the Motion to Terminate on August 7, 2012.

Once his case was terminated with the Immigration Court, our office prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on August 28, 2012, together with other necessary forms and supporting documents. 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 over conference all.

On October 31, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Baltimore CIS office. Our client was fully prepared and the interview went well.

On November 14, 2012, his green card application was approved.

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 marriage-based green card success stories, please click here.

For other deport case success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

<a href=”https://plus.google.com/107743308565341841259/posts?rel=author”>Google</a>

{ 0 comments }