Case: Termination of Proceedings / Adjustment of Status
Nationality: Chinese
Location: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in January 2002 with a valid B-1 visa. He has stayed in the United States ever since. He was placed in removal proceedings a few years later. While he was in the United States, his wife, who was a permanent resident, filed an I-130 petition for him. It was approved in June 2010. At the time of the I-130 filing, our client’s wife was a lawful permanent resident, so the priority date for our client was not current. She became a naturalized U.S. citizen on June 17, 2011.

Before our firm was retained, our client already had a scheduled asylum individual hearing in 2013. In August 2011, our client consulted with our office and sought legal assistance. We advised him that we would try to terminate his removal proceedings with the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) cooperation. Our office filed a request to join in a Motion to terminate proceedings with a copy of the I-485 application and supporting documents on November 8, 2011. The DHS counsel in Cleveland agreed to terminate our client’s removal proceedings. The Immigration Judge then granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice on December 7, 2011.

After the case got terminated, we filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status application with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) on December 22, 2011. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. There was no Request for Evidence. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients. On March 22, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland USCIS. We accompanied them at the interview as well. The interview went well, and our client’s green card application was approved the same day of the interview. After ten years in the United States and being through removal proceedings, our client is finally a permanent resident.

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 of proceedings 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 Reopen
CLIENT: El Salvadorian
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States without inspection and admission from El Salvador in 2004. When he was crossing the border, the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officials picked him up and placed him in a minor house as he was only 17 at that time.  Later, our client went to the Phoenix Immigration Court for his first hearing, and later on his venue was changed to Cleveland as he informed the Court that he was moving to Cleveland to live with his brother, who was on Temporary Protected Status (TPS).  He then appeared for his first hearing before the Cleveland Immigration Court. At the hearing, they scheduled a date for his next hearing, but also informed him that the hearing will change, and that he will get a notice in the mail. Our client has lived in Cleveland with his brother who has TPS status since. He never got the hearing notice.

On February 1, 2012, our client’s brother got a phone call from the Immigration Service and they asked him about our client.  The brother asked them what our client did wrong, and to his surprise, he was informed that our client had a final order of removal in November 2006. He was told that his brother should go to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on a specific date “to be processed”.

Our client and his brother immediately sought our help, and upon our check of our client’s A number with the court system, found that his final order was issued in November 2006 in Cleveland, OH.  We told him that he has a final order of removal and because of that, when he goes to ICE on his appointment date, he might get picked up. We told them that he has to file a Motion to Reopen before he goes to ICE for his appointment, and show them that the Motion was filed. He was already deportable, and the Motion would stay deportation and lessen the chance that he gets detained.

So our client retained our office the day before his appointment with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). We met him extensively to prepare the affidavit and on the same day, our office prepared and filed the Motion to Reopen with the Cleveland Immigration Court. We also gave our client a copy so that he could show ICE that he had an automatic stay with the pending Motion to Reopen.  Our client never received his hearing notice; moreover, his prior appearances in Court show that he previously complied with immigration appointments.

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.  In the Motion, we also explained that our client feared going back to El Salvador and that he intended to file asylum if the case is reopened.

When our client went to ICE, he showed the Motion to Reopen and fortunately, he was not detained. He was also issued an Order of Supervision, which was an added bonus since he became eligible to file a work permit.

Then, on March 13, 2012, the Cleveland Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case. Our client now does not have a final order of removal and may seek 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: Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Nigerian
COURT LOCATION: Baltimore, Maryland / New York, NY
RESIDENCE: Brooklyn, NY

Our client came to the United States with valid B-2 visitors visa in 2002, and later married his previous U.S. Citizen wife. He filed his green card application based on his previous marriage, but they separated prior to the interview so he never got notice of his interview, denial and the eventual notice to appear in Court.

Years later, our client married his second U.S. Citizen spouse, and he again filed for his green card application himself. 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. So his case was denied. He was told by the officer that he had to reopen his case. We met our client at our New York office and he retained us on August 2010 for the Motion to Reopen.

If an alien does not go to his or her 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). Through a 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 notice to appear. If the Notice to Appear was sent to the wrong address for example, 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.  Upon approval of the Motion to Reopen, we filed a Motion to Change of Venue as well.  The Baltimore Immigration Court granted our Motion, and later our client’s venue was changed to New York, NY.

Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our client at his Master Calendar hearing at the New York Immigration Court in March 2011, and he explained that an I-130 is pending and that a Stokes interview should be scheduled soon. On September 15, 2011,
Attorney JP Sarmiento accompanied our client and his U.S. Citizen wife for their I-130 Stokes interview. The interview went well, and the USCIS officer determined that our client’s marriage to his U.S. citizen wife was bona fide.  On the same day, the I-130 petition was approved.

With the approved I-130 petition, we filed a request to join in a motion to terminate with the DHS.  After review of our client’s application, the DHS agreed to join the motion. On October 22, 2011, the New York Immigration Court granted our Motion to Terminate, so our client’s removal proceedings were terminated.  Thereafter, our client filed an I-485 Adjustment of Status application to the USCIS on October 25, 2011.

Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. There was no Request for Evidence.  Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients. On February 13, 2012, our client was interviewed at the New York City, NY USCIS.  We accompanied them at the interview as well. The interview went well, and our client’s green card application was approved on February 28, 2012.

After being in the U.S. for over 10 years and having a final order of removal for about nine years, our client finally has his permanent resident 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 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.

{ 0 comments }

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

Our office was contacted in the middle of February regarding two Chinese people who were detained in Florence, Arizona. They tried to enter the United States without valid documents and were incarcerated by immigration officers.

Prior to retention, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement 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 them and their U.S. resident relative in Iowa and New York, and gathered as much information regarding their relief, equities, criminal record, 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 February 23 and 24, 2012, we represented our clients at their Florence Arizona Immigration Court master calendar and bond re-determination 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 clients already passed their credible fear interviews, were not a flight risk, had established their residence upon release, had established their financial ability to post bond, and that they had ample family ties in the United States who submitted proof of their residence and immigration status.  Moreover, our office explained that their lack of criminal record, designated address with contact information from their 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 clients have been released, venue has been changed, and they are now in the process of preparing their asylum applications.

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 deportation 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: BIA Appeal
CLIENT: Chinese
LOCATION: Elizabeth, NJ

Our client came to the United States without a valid visa and passport from China. She tried to enter the United States without valid documents, was incarcerated by immigration officers, and detained in Elizabeth, NJ.   Later, she filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) before the Immigration Court.  She claimed that she was persecuted back home based on her religious beliefs.

Her individual hearing was conducted on October 17, 2011 at the Elizabeth Immigration Court.  She was represented by her former immigration counsel, and after the hearing, the Immigration Judge denied her applications and had an adverse credibility finding.  She reserved appeal, and her relatives in the United States contacted our office to do her BIA appeal.

Our office was retained on October 27, 2011.  On October 28, 2011, our office filed a Notice to Appeal with the BIA. We then filed a brief in support of our client’s case on December 8, 2011. We argued that the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination was clearly erroneous.  After reviewing the trial transcript, we argued that our client testified in a credible manner and her testimony was largely consistent and plausible, citing specific examples based on the transcript.

On February 24, 2012, the BIA sustained our appeal. The BIA vacated the Immigration Judge’s decision, and remanded our client’s case to the Immigration Court for further fact finding.  The BIA also found that the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding was clearly erroneous because it was based, in large part, on our client’s omission during her testimony.  The BIA requested the Immigration Court to further assess our client’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT.

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 BIA appeal 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 }

CASE: Adjustment of Status at Removal Proceeding
CLIENT: Kenyan
LOCATION: Chicago, IL

Our client came to the United States in August 2005 with an F-1 student visa from Kenya.  He married a U.S. Citizen in January 2010.  Our client’s wife filed an I-130 petition on behalf of our client, and this I-130 petition was approved by the USCIS Milwaukee Field Office in December 2010.  He was placed in removal proceedings for overstaying his F-1 status, so our client contacted our office to seek legal representation for his removal proceedings.

Our client retained us on March 25, 2011.  On April 5, 2011, Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu of our office represented our client at his initial master calendar hearing at the Chicago Immigration Court.  We did pleadings for our client and asked for adjustment of status relief. After the Master Calendar hearing, our office prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application and other supporting documents to the Chicago Immigration Court.

On February 6, 2012, Attorney Yu represented our client at his Individual Hearing for adjustment of status at the Chicago Immigration Court.  After direct and cross examination, the Immigration Judge approved our client’s adjustment of status application. Now, our client is a permanent resident 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 marriage-based adjustment of status cases, please click here.

For other deportation 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 Stay / Motion to Reopen / Jail Release
CLIENT: Indonesian
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States with 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 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.  Once 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.

On January 12, 2012 our client was picked up and detained by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. We visited our client and jail and soon filed a Motion to Stay with the BIA. A stay if approved would prevent deportation pending a pending appeal or motion. Our office argued that the Board should issue a stay of removal pending a decision on the Motion to Reopen.  The Motion to Stay was filed with evidence of a bona fide marriage, however, on January 27, 2012, the BIA denied our request for stay. We immediately called ICE and they already set a deportation date of February 2, 2012. Since there was no limit to the Motions to Stay that one can file, we prepared another Motion to Stay on January 27, 2012, spending the whole day with our client’s wife in putting in more evidence of their bona fide marriage including a broad power of attorney entrusting his wife with the management of his financial, personal, and real property interests, a joint bank account, and numerous letters and photographs from family and friends affirming the bona fide nature of their marriage.  Our office argued that these types of documents submitted with our Motion clearly demonstrate that their marriage was entered into in good faith as the BIA set forth in Matter of Velarde, 23 I&N Dec. 253 (BIA 2002). On January 31, 2012, two days before the deportation date, our Motion to Stay was approved, which meant that our client would not be deported on February 2.

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). Upon approval of the Motion to Reopen, we promptly contacted ICE and requested release.  On February 10, 2012, our client finally released from the detention facility. Now he simply has to wait for his I-130 interview and once that is approved, he can apply for 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 Motion to Reopen success stories, please click here.

For other jail release 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 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 }

Issue: Arriving Alien / Adjustment of Status
Nationality: Filipina
Location: Los Angeles, CA / Cleveland, OH

Our Filipina client came to the United States in 2003 with an H-1B visa to work at a Cleveland Ohio hospital as a registered nurse. Through an attorney, her employer filed an I-140 Petition for her and she eventually filed an adjustment of status application. While her adjustment of status application was pending, our client traveled abroad with an Advanced Parole travel document. While abroad, her I-485 was denied due to unauthorized work lasting over 180 days not for the H-1B company. Though her I-485 was pending during that time, her attorney unfortunately did not file an I-765 application for employment authorization document even though she was eligible. She came back to the United States in February 2007 on the same advance parole document. She was not stopped despite the I-485 denial.

She did not know about the denied I-485 and she was not notified by her attorney, thus she was under the impression the I-485 was still pending and that her advance parole was valid. She later found out about the denied I-485 upon following up with her attorney so she hired a different attorney to re-file it and address all pertinent issues. However, her adjustment of status application was denied again in 2009 and she was placed in removal proceedings with the issuance of a Notice to Appear. Part of the denial focused on her last entry on the advance parole, when she came back when her I-485 was already denied. On her Notice to Appear (“NTA”), due to her entry, she was considered an arriving alien.

Our client married her U.S. citizen spouse after removal proceedings were initiated. Meanwhile, our client’s first hearing was scheduled at the Cleveland Immigration Court.  Our client consulted with our firm to see if there was anything that could be done for them knowing that she had this entry issue involving her I-131 despite a denied I-485, and her deemed illegal work for over 180 days.

We saw from her Notice to Appear that she was considered an arriving alien and based on that, we advised her that we can apply for adjustment of status based on her marriage to a U.S. citizen.  She retained us in June 2011.

An arriving alien can adjust his or her status with the USCIS even though he or she is in removal proceedings or has a final order. On May 12, 2006, the Attorney General (through the Executive Office for Immigration Review [EOIR]) and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (through DHS) jointly issued an interim rule that repealed former 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.1(c)(8) and 1245.1(c)(8). These two former regulations barred all “arriving aliens” – including parolees – from adjusting to permanent resident status if they were in removal proceedings.  Additionally, the interim rule set forth new regulations governing the jurisdiction of both EOIR and USCIS over adjustment applications in general and the adjustment of status applications of “arriving aliens” in particular.

Under the amended jurisdictional provisions of the interim regulations, the USCIS has been given jurisdiction over adjustment of status applications of all arriving aliens regardless of whether they are in removal proceedings, with a limited exception for certain advance parolees not relevant to this practice advisory. Specifically, the amended regulations grant USCIS “jurisdiction to adjudicate an application for adjustment of status filed by any alien, unless the immigration judge has jurisdiction to adjudicate the application under 8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1).” 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(1). The regulations strip an immigration judge of jurisdiction over the adjustment application of an “arriving alien” in proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1). Consequently, since the immigration judge does not have jurisdiction over such applications, USCIS does, in accord with this regulation. See also 92 Fed. Reg. at 27587 (explaining that one purpose of the amendments to the regulations is to make clear that USCIS has jurisdiction over the adjustment applications of “arriving aliens” in proceedings).

At the first hearing in Cleveland, Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu accompanied our client, took pleadings, and conceded removability. He explained that since our client is an arriving alien and is married to a U.S. Citizen, that she shall file an I-130 and I-485 with the CIS, since jurisdiction for both lies with the CIS. Our office then prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 adjustment of status application in accordance with the regulations, including the bona fide marriage exemption letter mandatory for marriages entered into after removal proceedings.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint notices, and work authorization all came on time.

Our client’s I-130/I-485 interview was scheduled on January 11, 2012 at the Los Angeles California USCIS field office. Prior to the interview, Attorney Yu thoroughly prepared our client and her husband for their USCIS adjustment of status interview. The preparation lasted for over an hour due to the “arriving alien” issue and other possible concerns with regards to our client’s extensive immigration history.

At the interview, Attorney Yu accompanied our client and her husband at the Los Angeles USCIS office. At the interview, the USCIS officer argued that they did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the adjustment of status application because removal proceedings were not yet terminated. Attorney Yu argued that the USCIS clearly has jurisdiction for adjudication of our client’s adjustment application, regardless of whether proceedings were terminated. He argued that termination can occur after the adjustment of status approval. The interview lasted two hours and included a meeting between Attorney Yu and the head of the Los Angeles USCIS, as referred by the CIS officer with regard to the jurisdictional issue. After the meeting, the USCIS officer eventually approved the I-130 petition on the same day.  Eventually, our client’s adjustment of status application was approved by the USCIS on January 26, 2012.  After almost ten years in the United States, overcoming two adjustment of status denials, and being placed in removal proceedings, our client is now finally a permanent resident 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 arriving alien success stories, please click here.

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

For all other success stories, please click here.

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

{ 2 comments }

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 }