CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition / I-485 Adjustment of Status
CLIENT: Ghanaian
LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio (EOIR) / Columbus, Ohio (USCIS)

Our client is a Ghanaian citizen who came to the U.S. on an F-1 Student Visa in August 2003 to study at a college in West Virginia.  He married his ex-wife in 2007, but their marriage ended sometime in 2011.  At the latter part of his previous marriage, his ex-wife, a U.S. Citizen, filed an I-130 petition for him, but later she withdrew the petition as their marriage was not working out at that time. The I-130 petition and our client’s I-485 application were denied, and a Notice to Appear was issued. Our client was placed into removal proceeding.

Our client then married his current U.S. Citizen wife in August 2011, and he retained our office on August 29, 2011. Once retained, our office immediately filed an I-130 Petition with bona fide marriage evidence on September 2, 2011.  While the I-130 petition was pending, our client appeared at the Cleveland Immigration Court on October 19, 2011 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 held on March 26, 2012 at the Columbus USCIS Filed Office.  Prior to the interview, our office thoroughly prepared our client and his wife for the interview at our office. Attorney Yu also accompanied them for their interview. The interview lasted one hour, 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 the I-485 application and supporting documents. The DHS counsel in Cleveland agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice.

After his removal proceedings were terminated, our client retained us again for his I-485 adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on May 14, 2012. 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. On July 13, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Columbus USCIS office. Two days later, his I-485 application was approved.  After eight years in the United States, our client is finally a green card holder.

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 deportation 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:  I-130
CLIENT: Mexican
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client is from Mexico who came to the U.S. without inspection and admission in 1988 with her parents. Since that time, she never left the United States.

In November 1991, our client’s father filed an I-130 (F2A) petition for her mother.  This I-130 petition was approved in March 1992.  At the time the I-130 Petition was approved, our client was a minor and was a derivative beneficiary. However, our client’s parents divorced in 2007.  Furthermore, our client was placed in removal proceeding in December 2009.

Around November 2010, our client contacted our office to represent her at removal proceedings. After we reviewed her previous immigration documents, we determined that she might be eligible to adjust her status under INA 245(i) and the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA).  She retained our office on December 1, 2010 and our attorney represented her at her master calendar hearing.  Cancellation of Removal relief was requested and we preserved possible adjustment of status relief through INA 245(i) and CSPA.

Section 245(i) of the INA allows certain foreign nationals to become permanent residents of the United States despite entering without inspection (EWI) or overstaying (if beneficiary of petitions filed not by an immediate relative). Immigrants are barred from adjusting their status if they entered the United States without first being inspected and admitted by a Customs and Border Patrol officer and if they have either failed to maintain lawful status or been unlawfully employed in the country, with certain exceptions. Section 245(i) was first added to law in 1994 to allow certain people who otherwise would not be eligible to adjust their status to be able to do so upon payment of a $1,000 fine.

Four years later, on January 14, 1998, Congress phased Section 245(i) out of law. Immigrants and their families who had already begun the process of changing their status under Section 245(i) by January 14, 1998 were grandfathered into the section’s benefits. However, this left thousands of otherwise qualified persons who had not begun the process unable to adjust status in the United States. They could not return to their countries to begin the legal process of obtaining their permanent residency in the United States also without being subject to either a three- or a 10-year bar upon returning to the United States.

On December 21, 2000, Congress extended the qualifying date for Section 245(i) benefits to April 30, 2001. This law allowed immigrants who had labor certifications or visa petitions filed on their behalf between 1998 and April 30, 2001, to qualify for adjustment of status. Those who were beneficiaries of petitions filed prior to January 14, 1998 could still adjust despite an EWI record, and those people do not have to meet the December 2000 physical presence requirement.

Section 3 of CSPA, codified in section 203(h) of the INA, provides that “If the age of the alien is determined to be 21 years of age or older… the alien’s petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.”

Our client was the derivative beneficiary of her father’s petition for her mother in November, 1991.  Our client is now older than 21. According to Section 3 of CSPA, a new I-130 petition by our client’s father on behalf of our client should automatically retain the priority date of the original I-130 petition, which was November 1991, in which our client was a derivative beneficiary. If this new I-130 is approved with a November 1991 priority date, our client would be eligible to adjust under 245(i) since the priority date is current and the petition was filed before January 1998.  So it was two petitions that saved her case, one for 245i, and the other for adjustment eligibility, retaining the old priority date under CSPA.

On January 11, 2012, our office filed the I-130 Petition with a cover brief (citing the CSPA provision) and other supporting documents.  Her I-130 was approved by the USCIS California Service Center on June 14, 2012 with the old priority date (November 1991).  Now, we can work on terminating her proceedings for CIS adjustment of status.

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 245i success stories, please click here.

For other CSPA 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: TPS Extension
Client: Salvadoran
Location: Cleveland, OH

The Secretary of Homeland Security may designate a foreign country for Temporary Protected Status due to conditions in the country that temporarily prevent the country’s nationals from returning safely, or in certain circumstances, where the country is unable to handle the return of its nationals adequately. USCIS may grant TPS to eligible nationals of certain countries (or parts of countries), who are already in the United States. Eligible individuals without nationality who last resided in the designated country may also be granted TPS. The Secretary may designate a country for TPS due to the following temporary conditions in the country: 1) Ongoing armed conflict (such as civil war); 2) An environmental disaster (such as earthquake or hurricane), or 3) an epidemic or other extraordinary and temporary condition. During the designated period, individuals who are TPS beneficiaries or who are found preliminarily eligible for TPS upon initial review of their cases (prima facie eligible): are not removable from the United States, can obtain an employment authorization document (EAD), may be granted travel authorization

Once TPS is granted, the individual also cannot be detained by DHS on the basis of his or her immigration status in the United States.

Our client first entered the United States in 1990 and has resided in the U.S. ever since. He had obtained TPS and work permits for a long time. He contacted our office in February 2012 for his TPS re-registration and work permit. He previously tried to re-register his TPS extension, but it was denied previously. He has not had a work permit for over 2 years. Our client retained us on February 23, 2012. On February 29, 2012, our office filed his TPS Application and Work Permit with a brief regarding his eligibility. We explained that our client has continued residence in the United States and continued physical presence since 1999. On May 15, 2012, the USCIS approved his TPS and issued a valid work permit for our client.

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 consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition / I-485 under the INA 245(i) provision
CLIENT: St. Lucian
LOCATION: New York, NY

Our client is from St. Lucia who came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitors visa in December 2003. Since that time, she never left the United States.  Because of her overstay, removal proceedings was initiated against her in September 2010.

In May 1986, our client’s aunt filed an I-130 (fourth preference) petition for her father.  This I-130 petition was approved in August 1986.  At the time the I-130 Petition was approved, our client was a minor and was a derivative beneficiary. Later, our client’s father filed an I-130 petition on behalf of our client in February 1998.  This Petition was approved in November of that year.

Our client contacted us around December of 2010 for consultation and sought legal assistance for her removal proceedings. After the consultation, we determined that she is eligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(i). Our client retained us on January 13, 2011.

Section 245(i) of the INA allows certain foreign nationals to become permanent residents of the United States despite entering without inspection (EWI) or overstaying (if beneficiary of petitions filed not by an immediate relative). Immigrants are barred from adjusting their status if they entered the United States without first being inspected and admitted by a Customs and Border Patrol officer and if they have either failed to maintain lawful status or been unlawfully employed in the country, with certain exceptions. Section 245(i) was first added to law in 1994 to allow certain people who otherwise would not be eligible to adjust their status to be able to do so upon payment of a $1,000 fine.

Four years later, on January 14, 1998, Congress phased Section 245(i) out of law. Immigrants and their families who had already begun the process of changing their status under Section 245(i) by January 14, 1998 were grandfathered into the section’s benefits. However, this left thousands of otherwise qualified persons who had not begun the process unable to adjust status in the United States. They could not return to their countries to begin the legal process of obtaining their permanent residency in the United States also without being subject to either a three- or a 10-year bar upon returning to the United States.

On December 21, 2000, Congress extended the qualifying date for Section 245(i) benefits to April 30, 2001. This law allowed immigrants who had labor certifications or visa petitions filed on their behalf between 1998 and April 30, 2001, to qualify for adjustment of status. Those who were beneficiaries of petitions filed prior to January 14, 1998 could still adjust despite an EWI record, and those people do not have to meet the December 2000 physical presence requirement.

Our client was the beneficiary of her father’s petition in February 1998, which is current, but this by itself would not have allowed her to adjust status since this was filed after January 1998 and because she came in 2003, thus not meeting the December 21, 2000 physical presence requirement. However, she was also the beneficiary of a petition filed before January 14, 1998, that of her aunt’s petition for her father. So it was two petitions that saved her case, one for 245i, and the other for adjustment eligibility.

Once retained, our office promptly filed a Motion to Change Venue from Buffalo to New York.  This was granted and on April 1, 2011, 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 New York agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to Terminate without prejudice on August 17, 2011.

Once her case was terminated, the USCIS New York scheduled an I-485 interview for our client. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our client through conference call. On May 1, 2012, our client was interviewed at the New York City USCIS office. Attorney JP Sarmiento accompanied her at the interview as well. Due to the complexity of the case, we made sure the officer was clear about our client’s 245i eligibility. On May 30, 2012, our client’s I-485 application was approved.  She finally became a green card holder.

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 245i success stories, please click here.

For termination success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact us anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Cameroonian
LOCATION: Memphis, TN

Our client came to the United States from Cameroon without inspection in July 2001. Within a year of his entry, he filed an I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal in March 2002 to the USCIS.  He was interviewed in April 2002, and his application was subsequently referred to the Memphis Immigration Court in May 2002.  His removal proceedings were continued, but he could not appear at his individual hearing in April 2003 due to being hospitalized. Thus, the Court found him removable and ordered him removed in absentia.

Later, in April 2011, he filed a Motion to Reopen with the assistance of his previous immigration counsel.  However, this Motion to Reopen was denied by the Court in July 2011.  Thereafter, he contacted our office to determine whether he can file a Motion to Reopen again. We explained to him that the only way the Court can reopen his case is based on changed country conditions in Cameroon. Otherwise, our client’s second Motion to Reopen will be considered untimely filed and numerically barred. Our client decided to retain our office on November 22, 2011 for a Motion to Reopen based on changes in country conditions under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i).

We prepared the brief and helped our client with the supporting documents and on March 6, 2012, our office filed a fifteen-page Motion to Reopen with the Memphis Immigration Court, together with a total of 24 exhibits. We included a detailed affidavit regarding his involvement in a political activist group in Cameroon, and several affidavits from his fellow members who confirmed his involvement with the organization.  We claimed that the number of arrests and detentions of his political group have recently escalated since his original removal hearing in 2003 resulting in changed country conditions.  We also attached a letter from a human rights officer in which he stated that he knew about our client’s political involvement in Cameroon. Other supporting documents such as newspaper articles and a recent country report from Cameroon were submitted (24 exhibits).  On March 29, 2012, the DHS filed a Response in Opposition to our Motion.  Nevertheless, on May 2, 2012, the Memphis Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case.  Our client now does not have a final order of removal and will proceed to seek asylum relief 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: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition
CLIENT: Ghanaian
LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio (EOIR) / Columbus, Ohio (USCIS)

Our client is a Ghanaian citizen who came to the U.S. on an F-1 Student Visa in August 2003 to study at a college in West Virginia.  He married his ex-wife, a U.S. Citizen, in 2007, but their marriage ended in 2011.  At the latter stage of his previous marriage, his ex-wife, a U.S. Citizen, filed an I-130 for him, but later withdrew the petition as their marriage did not work out well.  The I-130 petition was denied and after the denial, a Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceeding.

Our client got divorced to his first wife and then married his second U.S. Citizen wife in August 2011. He retained our office on August 29, 2011. Our office prepared and filed an I-130 Petition with bona fide marriage evidence of his two marriages on September 2, 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 October 19, 2011 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 March 26, 2012 at the Columbus USCIS Field Office.  Prior to the interview, our office thoroughly prepared our client and his wife for the interview. Attorney Yu 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. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice. He’s not in proceedings anymore. Now, he can file his I-485 adjustment of status application to the USCIS and eventually 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.

{ 2 comments }

CASE: Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Ghanaian
LOCATION: Phoenix, AZ / Immigration Court: Arlington, VA

Our client came to the United States on a valid B-2 visa from Ghana in 2004 to visit his aunt in Maryland. Later, he decided to stay in the United States, and did not leave. He worked illegally, and on June 2004, our client got picked up at work by immigration officers and was issued a Notice to Appear.

The Notice to Appear did not have a hearing date and time. He was told he would get a hearing notice in the mail. He never moved for the next two years, yet he never received any hearing notice in the mail. Thus, he never got notice of his hearing. Our client thought that the immigration court just closed his case due to his young age at that time.

More than three years later, he married his U.S. Citizen wife and moved to Arizona. They have a U.S. citizen child as well.

He contacted our firm to inquire about the possibilities of applying for adjustment of status. Upon checking his documents, we found out that he had a final order in 2005. He said he was not aware that he had a hearing date in March 2005. He explained that he got a Notice to Appear, was expecting a hearing notice, lived at the address that was on the Notice to Appear for the next two years, yet never received anything. Because of his absence at the Arlington Immigration Court hearing, the court issued an in absentia order of removal in 2005.  We told him that we have to reopen his case first before he can even apply for adjustment of status.

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 notice of the hearing.

On March 9, 2012, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Arlington 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 (26 exhibits). On April 11, 2012, the Arlington Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case.  Our client now does not have the final order of removal and may seek adjustment of status relief with the Immigration Court upon approval of the I-130 marriage-based petition that was filed for him. He may also seek termination of removal proceedings and apply for adjustment of status with the CIS instead.

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: TPS Extension
Client: Honduran
Location: Michigan

The Secretary of Homeland Security may designate a foreign country for Temporary Protected Status due to conditions in the country that temporarily prevent the country’s nationals from returning safely, or in certain circumstances, where the country is unable to handle the return of its nationals adequately.  USCIS may grant TPS to eligible nationals of certain countries (or parts of countries), who are already in the United States.  Eligible individuals without nationality who last resided in the designated country may also be granted TPS. The Secretary may designate a country for TPS due to the following temporary conditions in the country: 1) Ongoing armed conflict (such as civil war); 2) An environmental disaster (such as earthquake or hurricane), or 3) an epidemic other extraordinary and temporary conditions.  During a designated period, individuals who are TPS beneficiaries or who are found preliminarily eligible for TPS upon initial review of their cases (prima facie eligible):

• Are not removable from the United States
• Can obtain an employment authorization document (EAD)
• May be granted for travel authorization

Once granted TPS, an individual also cannot be detained by DHS on the basis of his or her immigration status in the United States.

Our client first entered the United States in 1996 and has resided in the U.S. ever since. He had obtained TPS and work permits for a long time.  He contacted our office in December 2011 for his TPS re-registration and work permit. He previously tried to re-register the TPS, but it was denied due to his criminal record. He has not had a work permit for over 2 years. Our client retained us on January 3, 2012.  On January 4, 2012, our office filed his TPS Application and Work Permit with a brief regarding his eligibility.  We explained that our client has continued residence in the United States and continued physical presence since 1999. On March 23, 2012, the USCIS approved his TPS and issued a valid work permit for our client.

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 consultations.

{ 0 comments }

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

Our office was contacted in early March regarding a Chinese individual 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 amount.  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 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 relative, from proof of their status and residence, to bank statements and tax returns.

On April 6, 2012, Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu represented our client in his Florence Arizona Immigration Court bond re-determination hearing. The DHS proposed a bond but it was too high. 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 had ample family ties in the United States who submitted proof of their residence and immigration status.  Moreover, 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 by one third of the original 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 case 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: Asylum in Immigration Court
CLIENT: Russian
LOCATION: New York Immigration Court

Our Russian client came to the United States on a J-1 visa in June 2009.  She was persecuted in Russia based on her ethnicity, so within one year of her entry, she filed an asylum application (Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and relief under the CAT) to the USCIS.  She was interviewed at the Asylum Office in New York, but her case was referred to an immigration judge in June 2010.  The Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceedings.  The USCIS thought that our client’s testimony was different from that of her written statement.

After the case was referred to the Immigration Court, our client contacted our office in late January of 2011. We met her in New York City for the consultation. She then retained our office on February 4, 2011.

Our client was scared to go back home to Russia, fearing that she will be persecuted based on her ethnicity. Our client lived in Russia with her mother, however, her mother was attacked by racial extremists and she was severely injured by the attack.  Later in 2008, our client was severely attacked by a group of skinheads based on her ethnicity. As a result of this attack, she had rib fractures and a concussion. The Russian police did not fully investigate the incident and could not arrest any attackers.

We helped her prepare her asylum application and represented her in immigration court hearings. We also asked her to provide supporting documents corroborating her claim, some of which were a letter from her mother and friends in Russia, Russian medical documents of our client and her mother, and her membership certification with the anti-fascist front. Our firm also did some research on articles related to her claim, and the type of persecution she will experience in Russia if sent back.

Our client’s individual hearing was scheduled on August 11, 2011 at the New York Immigration Court. Attorney Sung Hee Yu represented our client at the hearing. During the hearing, our client testified credibly as to her past persecution in Russia and likelihood of future persecution. After the hearing, the Immigration Judge requested us to submit a new X-ray and psychiatry report from U.S. doctors. The court also requested our client’s doctor to testify at the hearing. On April 5, 2012, after the doctor’s expert testimony, the Immigration Judge granted asylum relief for our client. She is now an asylee who will get her work permit in two weeks and will be eligible to apply for permanent residency in one year.

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 asylum success stories, please click here.

For other deportation case 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 }