CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings Based on Approved I-130 Petition
CLIENT: Indonesian
LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client came to the U.S. on a valid B-2 visa from Indonesia in March 2003. He later filed for asylum but was denied by the Immigration Judge in May 2010. Our client subsequently filed a timely appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), but the BIA also dismissed the appeal on October 21, 2011. In December 2011, our client married his U.S. Citizen wife and through our office, filed an I-130 petition on January 3, 2012. After we obtained the I-130 receipt notice, we filed a Motion to Reopen on January 10, 2012, within the 90-day deadline for filing Motions to Reopen with the BIA.

Eventually, the BIA granted our client’s Motion to Reopen on February 8, 2012, and remanded it to the Immigration Judge to allow our client to apply for adjustment of status (green card).

Our client’s I-130 interview was scheduled on July 23, 2012 at Cleveland USCIS Field Office. Prior to the interview, our office thoroughly prepared our client and his wife for the interview. Attorney Sarmiento also accompanied them for their interview. The I-130 petition was eventually approved the next day.

After the I-130 was approved, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to Terminate proceedings with a copy of the I-485 application and supporting documents. The DHS counsel in Cleveland agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings at our client’s Master Calendar hearing on November 7, 2012. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice. Now, he can file his I-485 adjustment of status application to USCIS for 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 Termination 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: 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 }

CASE: Cancellation of Removal for Non-Permanent Resident
CLIENT: Kenyan
LOCATION: Respondent resides in St. Louis, MO / Kansas City Immigration Court in MO

Our client retained our firm back in March 2010 from St. Louis, MO. She came to the United States in 1999 from Kenya with a J-1 exchange visitor visa. She has one U.S. citizen son who has serious food allergies, asthma, and eczema, and she has not had lawful status in the United States since her J-1 visa is expired. She was subject to the two-year foreign residency requirement. She was a single mom. The father of her child left her while she was pregnant.

The first thing we did for her was file an I-612 J-1 hardship waiver. She would not be able to adjust status without that. And our firm won the hardship waiver for her.

She was then placed in removal proceedings and on July 12, 2011, our client appeared at her master calendar hearing at the Kansas City Immigration Court in Missouri, and Attorney JP Sarmiento represented her at the hearing and sought cancellation of removal relief for non-permanent residents.

For a non-permanent resident to be eligible for Cancellation of Removal, the alien must prove that s/he:

• Has been physically present in the U.S. continuously for ten years prior to the issue date of the Notice to Appear;
• Has been a person of good moral character;
• Has not been convicted of any crimes that would make her/him inadmissible;
• Her/his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her/his U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, parent, or child.

The Court scheduled the individual hearing date on March 14, 2012.

Our firm worked with our client for the application and supplemental documents. We called her several times for supporting documents, and obtained the medical records from her son’s hospital. Obviously the central issue in this case would be whether or not our client has established exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her qualifying relative, her U.S. citizen son.

As mentioned above, our client’s U.S. citizen son suffered from serious food allergies. He also suffers from eczema and was treated for asthma, though his asthma was in remission for a period of time. 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.

We arranged the medical documents for our client’s son as well. We arranged all her physical presence documents according to the specific year they referred to, and filed them with the Kansas City Immigration Court. We then prepared the client for her hearing, and focused on the extreme and exceptional hardships her U.S. Citizen son would face.

At the Individual Hearing on March 14, 2012, Attorney JP Sarmiento represented our client at the Kansas City Immigration Court. Testimony then followed and we questioned our client extensively on the hardships her U.S. Citizen son would face. Our client was prepared, was very consistent, and was honest in her answers. She was detailed with the specific medical issues of her son. She testified that her son’s food allergies present a very serious health issue for her son in that he suffers anaphylaxis. However, the Court could not render the decision at the end of hearing due to the exhausted annual quota for Cancellation relief.

On October 3, 2012, the Kansas City Immigration Court granted our client’s cancellation of removal relief. The Court specifically noted that our client’s son’s food allergies, in the aggregate with his asthma and eczema, together with the fact that our client has been a single mother since pregnancy, would be an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for him should he return to Kenya. The Judge mentioned that food labeling and medical treatment is not as readily available as in the United States. Finally, after 13 years of hard work and perseverance, our client is now a permanent resident (green card holder) of 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 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 }

CASE: Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings Based on an Approved I-130 Immediate Relative Spousal Petition
CLIENT: Ghanaian
LOCATION: Phoenix, AZ

Our client is a Ghanaian citizen who came to the U.S. on a B-2 Visitor Visa in 2004. Our client overstayed and worked illegally after, and was thus placed in removal proceedings. He missed Court, and he had a final order of removal in absentia at the Arlington Immigration Court, 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 in Arizona. They had two U.S. citizen children. Prior to filing the Motion to Reopen, our office filed an I-130 petition based on our client’s marriage to his U.S. citizen wife. The I-130 petition was filed on March 5, 2012.

Generally, if someone is a beneficiary of an I-130 petition while he or she is in removal proceedings, the USCIS schedules what’s called a Stokes interview, in which both husband and wife are interviewed separately for intensive questioning. This is to make sure the marriage is in good faith, and not entered into for the purpose of avoiding deportation.

The I-130 petition we filed though included various supporting documents which demonstrated the bona fide nature of our client’s marriage. We also emphasized the fact that they have been married for 5 years and have two U.S. citizen children. As a result, the USCIS approved the I-130 petition for our client without requesting an interview at the local office. The I-130 was actually approved the day before his scheduled Master Hearing in Phoenix, AZ.

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. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to Terminate without prejudice on October 9, 2012. Our client is not in removal proceedings anymore. Now, he can file his I-485 adjustment of status application to the USCIS to obtain 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 termination 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: Bond Redetermination Hearing
APPLICANT: Chinese
LOCATION: Florence Immigration Court, AZ

Our office was contacted in late September regarding a Chinese citizen 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 already set a very high bond. 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 relatives in Pennsylvania, 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 his relatives, from proof of their status and residence, to bank statements and tax returns.

On October 2, 2012, we represented our client for his Florence Arizona Immigration Court bond redetermination hearing. We explained 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 their residence and immigration status.

Our office explained that his lack of criminal records, 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.

Our client has been released and is in the process of preparing his asylum application.

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 cases, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Motion to Remand / I-130 Approval
CLIENT: Nepalese
LOCATION: Baltimore, MD

Our client came to the United States with a valid B-2 visa from Nepal in January 1998. He remained in the United States for a time longer than permitted. In November 2009, he was placed in deportation proceedings due to his overstay and a Notice to Appear was issued. His asylum application was denied by the Immigration Judge, but an appeal was timely filed.

While the BIA appeal was pending, our client’s daughter became a naturalized U.S. Citizen in January 2012. Our office immediately filed an I-130 petition for our client on February 6, 2012. After we received the I-130 receipt notice, we prepared and filed a Motion to Remand for Adjustment of Status Based on a Pending I-130 on behalf our client. You typically want the I-130 to be approved prior to filing the Motion to Remand, but by submitting the actual I-130 application itself and its supporting documents attached to the Motion, you can show that it is approvable.

In Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992), the BIA found that a motion to remand must conform to the same standards as a motion to reopen, where the respondent presents new evidence which would likely change the result of the case. In a Motion to Reopen before the BIA, the Applicant must show that the evidence is material, unavailable at time of original hearing, and could not have been discovered or presented at the original hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). In this case, the adjustment of status relief was not available for our client at his previous hearing since his daughter has not become a naturalized U.S. citizen yet.

Our office filed a Motion to Remand for Adjustment of Status based on a pending I-130 to the BIA on February 24, 2012. We argued that our client will be eligible for adjustment of status once the I-130 is approved since he had a legal entry to the U.S., has no criminal records, and has no other grounds of inadmissibility. Eventually, on July 10, 2012, the BIA granted our motion, reopened our client’s case, and the record was remanded for further proceedings.

While we were waiting for adjudication of the I-130 petition, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) regarding the paternal relationship of our client. Apparently, the birth certificate submitted from Nepal was not enough. So we scheduled a DNA test for our client and this resulted to a 99.99% likelihood of paternity. On September 14, 2012, the USCIS approved the I-130 petition for our client. Now, he can apply for the adjustment of status before Immigration Judge or USCIS upon termination of his proceedings.

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 / Remand Cases, please click here.

For other I-130 Parent Petition Success Stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Chinese
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH / Immigration Court: Detroit Immigration Court

Our client came to the United States on a valid B-2 visa from China in 2002.  Later, she changed her status to F-1 and remained in the United States. She filed an I-485 application as a derivative applicant of her ex-husband in 2007.  However, while the application was pending, our client and her ex-husband got separated.  Unfortunately, in 2008, her I-485 adjustment of status application was denied.   She never received the denial notice from the USCIS since she moved to a different city in Ohio before her case was denied.  Thus, our client never received the Notice to Appear and was not apprised of the fact that she was placed in removal proceedings.  Accordingly, the Detroit Immigration Court issued an in absentia order of removal for our client in August 2010.

In January 2012, our client was picked up by ICE officers.  She was surprised to find out that she was being held because she had a final order of removal and missed her hearing in August 2010.  She explained her situation, so she was not detained, and was placed on an order of supervision. Our client contacted our firm and eventually retained us in March 2012.  Once we were retained, we asked our client to check with her ex-husband or her relatives whether they received the Notice to Appear for her.  We told her that we have to reopen her case first before she can even apply for relief at the Immigration Court.

To rescind the final order, she has to get her 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 notice of the hearing.

On July 31, 2012, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Detroit Immigration Court. Documentation of her address at the date of the final order, a detailed affidavit regarding her addresses and her circumstances around the final order date, documentation of the last address she provided to the immigration service prior to the final order date, and other supporting documents were submitted (20 exhibits). On August 16, 2012, the Detroit Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case. Our client now does not have the final order of removal anymore and will seek asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the CAT with the Immigration 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 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: Immigration Bond Court Hearing / Release from Detention
APPLICANT: Guatemalan
LOCATION: Cleveland Immigration Court, Ohio

Our office was contacted in the middle of July regarding a Guatemalan who was recently picked up by the Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) officers and detained in Ohio. He entered the United States without inspection in 2006.

Prior to retention, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement told us that they have a no bond issuance for our clients, because he was single, had a probation violation issue, has no family ties, and no permanent address. Our client wished to be released.

Upon retention, we filed a motion for bond redetermination with the Cleveland Immigration Court in Ohio. Our office communicated with our client and his U.S. resident relative in Cleveland, and gathered as much information regarding his relief, equities, family ties, and financial ability to post bond. We also gathered supporting documents from those relatives, from proof of their status and residence, to bank statements and tax returns.

On August 7, 2012, we represented our client at his Cleveland Immigration Court master calendar and bond hearings. For the Master Calendar hearing, we did pleadings and sought asylum relief. During the bond re-determination hearing, we explained to the Court that our client 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 their residence and immigration status. Our office explained that his 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 set. At the end of the hearing, the Immigration Judge took our arguments into account and set the bond for our client at $7500.

Our client has been released, and he is now in the process of preparing his asylum application.

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 immigration bond hearing and release from detention 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: Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings Based on an Approved I-130 Immediate Relative Spousal Petition
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 Filed 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 Removal Proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings without prejudice. Our client is not in removal proceedings anymore. Now, he can file his I-485 adjustment of status application to USCIS to obtain 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 more success stories, please click here.

For more motion to terminate removal proceedings success stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE: 2nd Circuit Appeal / Asylum / Christianity – Religion
CLIENT: Chinese
LOCATION: Virginia

Our client came to the United States without a valid visa and passport from China in 1996.  In 2006, our client filed an asylum application based on the fact that he has two children. This application was referred to the New York Immigration Court.  In April 2007, the New York Immigration Court granted our client’s asylum application. The government appealed and in August 2008, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed the Immigration Court’s decision. In 2009, our client filed an amended application so that he can pursue his claim based on religion – that he was baptized subsequent to the Board’s decision.  Unfortunately, in October 2009, the Immigration Judge denied the asylum application, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture claims. Our client filed an appeal immediately, but the BIA dismissed the appeal. The BIA found that the time limitation barred our client’s asylum application.

In November 2011, our client contacted our office for her Second Circuit Appeal. Our office determined that our client has a good chance for winning an appeal with the Second Cicuit. Our client retained our office on November 30, 2011 for his appeal to the federal Second Circuit Court. On April 13, 2012, our office filed a brief to the Second Circuit stating that the Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion when they denied our client’s asylum application.  Specifically, we argued that although the asylum was filed outside the one year period, the time limitation does not bar our client’s asylum application due to the fact that he became a Christian less than a year before he filed his second asylum claim. On July 12, 2012, the Second Circuit Court remanded our client’s case to the BIA for further consideration of our client’s previous 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 success stories, please click here.

For any questions, feel free to comment below or contact our office directly.

{ 0 comments }