Case: Marriage in Detention and Custody Release / Review
Client: Chinese
Location: Cleveland Ohio

Our client, a Chinese National, was picked up by ICE in late August 2011 because of an outstanding deportation order. His relative retained our firm to represent him to work on getting his release. After an initial evaluation, we informed our client’s relative that it would be a challenge because he was single with no family ties in the United States and he had no other favorable conditions for release.

Fortunately, our client’s fiancé had applied for asylum and her asylum interview was pending. They were about to get married but our client got detained prior, and they thought they could not get married anymore unless he was released.

We informed them that a request could be made to ICE for marriage-in-detention, and that afterwards we may have an argument that he could become a derivative applicant of his fiancé’s asylum application which could be a basis for requesting his release. We informed them it was a stretch, but based on the prosecutorial memo released last year, it was worth a shot.

Despite the fact that our client was in detention, our firm made arrangements for his fiancé to obtain a marriage license and also contacted ICE for permission for them to get married at the detention facility. Subsequently, we arranged for a minister to conduct the wedding ceremony in jail for our client and his fiancé. We filed the request and after a few days, the Detroit Regional Immigration and Customs Enforcement office approved it.

After their marriage, we immediately filed a “Motion to Stay  Removal” for the client with ICE. Prior to our client’s detention reaching 90 days, we filed a “Request for Release on 90-Day Custody Review”, but unfortunately, ICE issued a decision continuing detention. We negotiated further with ICE and even personally went to their office at the Federal Building. Soon, we were given a chance to submit another “Request for Release – Custody Review” before jurisdiction got transferred to Washington DC. We argued that once his wife’s asylum is approved, she would be able to file an I-730 for our client, who then can file a DHS Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen or a Sua Sponte Motion to Reopen to seek derivative asylee status as the beneficiary of an approved I-730. Simultaneously, we also filed a “Deferred Action Request” pursuant to the recent John Morton memo.

On January 5, 2011, the ICE officer personally called our office to inform us that the Detroit ICE considered our second request and decided to release our client. He was released under order of supervision that same day.

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: Request to Join in a Motion to Terminate with DHS and Motion to Terminate with the Cleveland Immigration Court
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 obtained her green card through asylum, 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 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.

Now that removal proceedings are terminated, he can file an I-485 adjustment of status (green card) application with the USCIS. His case will be at the USCIS Cleveland Office for final adjudication.

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

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

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

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

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

For other success stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }

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

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

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

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

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

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

For other success stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }

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

Our office was contacted in early September regarding a Chinese individual detained in Eloy, Arizona. This person 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 Eloy Immigration Court in Arizona.  Our office communicated with her and her U.S. resident relative in Connecticut, and gathered as much information regarding her 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 October 3, 2011, we represented our client for her Eloy Arizona Immigration Court master calendar hearing and bond re-determination hearing simultaneously.  During the Master Calendar hearing, we did pleadings for our client, and requested asylum relief.  During the bond re-determination hearing, we explained to the Court that our client already passed her credible fear interview, was not a flight risk, had established her residence upon release, had established her financial ability to post bond, and that she had ample family ties in the United States who submitted proof of their residence and immigration status.  Moreover, our office explained that her lack of criminal record, designated address with contact information from his relative in the United States, ability to post bond, and eligibility for asylum relief clearly demonstrate that the bond should be reduced.  We also emphasized that our client is a young female individual, and explained briefly the nature of her asylum claim. At the end of the hearing, the Immigration Judge took our arguments into account and reduced the bond to only one-third of the  amount the DHS originally set it for.

Our client has been released and is in the process of preparing her 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: Motion to Reopen / Terminate with the BIA
Nationality: Chinese
Location: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in 2000 without any immigration document (such as a passport and / or visa) from China.  After he arrived at the port of entry, he was inspected by the DHS officer and was paroled into the United States.  He applied for asylum, but was later denied by the Immigration Judge in New York in 2002.  He appealed with the BIA and that too was denied. Thus, he had a final order of removal.

Despite his final order of removal, our client remained in the United States for the next nine years and eventually married his U.S. Citizen spouse.  As we stated in a previous success story, this client ultimately obtained his permanent residency through adjustment of status with the USCIS as an arriving alien.

After he obtained his permanent residency, he retained our office again to terminate his final order of removal.  Since he had a final order of removal, our office filed a Motion to Terminate Proceedings to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) on August 26, 2011.  Although the DHS opposed our motion, the BIA granted our Motion to Terminate on September 30, 2011. Our client now does not have a final order of removal on his records.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

For other deportation related success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }

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

Our office was contacted in late August regarding a Chinese individual detained in Florence, Arizona. This Chinese client 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, Arizona Immigration Court.  Our office communicated with him and his U.S. resident relative in New York, and gathered as much information regarding his relief, equities, criminal record, family ties, and financial ability to post bond.  We also gathered supporting documents from those relatives, from proof of their status and residence, to bank statements and tax returns.

On September 15, 2011, we represented our client for his first Master Calendar hearing.  Our client did pleadings, requested asylum relief, and requested a bond re-determination hearing.  The Immigration Judge set a bond re-determination hearing on September 27, 2011.

On September 27, 2011, we represented our client for his Florence Arizona Immigration Court bond re-determination hearing.  During the hearing, we contended that our client was eligible for asylum relief, 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 emphasized that his lack of criminal record, designated address with contact information from his relative in the United States, ability to post bond, and eligibility for asylum relief clearly demonstrate that the bond should be reduced.  The Judge took our arguments into account and reduced the bond amount by a substantial 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: Chinese
LOCATION: Elizabeth, New Jersey Immigration Court

Our client, through his relative in the United States, retained us in May 2011 to help him with his asylum case. He is from China and came to the United States with a fraudulent passport.  He was not inspected nor admitted into the United States, and was detained in the Elizabeth New Jersey CDF facility.  He passed his credible fear interview and at his Master Hearing, with our firm representing him, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under CAT.  Our client is scared to go back home to China, fearing that he will be persecuted on account of his political opinion against the “one-child policy (forced family planning)” in China.

Our client lived in China with his wife and son.  However, he learned that his wife was pregnant again early this year.  Fearing forced abortion against her, our client told his wife to hide and did not report her pregnancy to the local Family Planning Office. According to our client, forced abortions and sterilization surgeries are common in his village in China.   Later, the Family Planning Office personnel came to his house and looked for his wife several times.  When they could not find her, they forced to take our client for sterilization surgery.  Our client opposed the Family Planning Office and its personnel, and he had a physical altercation with them.  The officials punched and beat him.  Eventually, our client managed to escape and fled his home town.  He left China and arrived in the U.S. in April 2011.

Once retained, we helped him prepare his asylum application.  We also asked him to provide supporting documents corroborating his claim, some of which were a letter from his wife, the notarial birth certificate of his son, medical records of his wife, and a family planning procreation and birth healthcare service booklet for his wife.  Our firm also did some research on articles pertaining to his particular claim, and the type of persecution he will experience in China if sent back.

Our client’s individual hearing was scheduled on September 12, 2011 at the Elizabeth Immigration Court in New Jersey. Attorney Sung Hee Yu represented our client at the hearing. During the hearing, our client testified credibly as to his past persecution in China and likelihood of future persecution. On September 20, 2011, the Immigration Judge granted asylum relief for our client and our client was subsequently released. He is now an asylee and will be eligible to apply for permanent resident status in one year. He also would obtain his work permit in about two weeks.

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 success stories, please click here.

Also free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

For other motion to reopen success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

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

A family relative of a Chinese individual detained in Florence, Arizona contacted our office at the end of August.  This Chinese client tried to enter the United States without valid documents and was incarcerated by immigration officers. He was given a credible fear interview which he eventually passed.

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, Arizona Immigration Court.  Despite being in jail in Florence, we communicated with him and gathered as much information regarding his relief, equities, criminal record, family ties, and financial ability to post bond. We contacted our client’s several relatives and friends in Atlanta, Georgia. We also gathered supporting documents from those relatives, from proof of their status and residence, to bank statements and tax returns.

On September 1, 2011, we represented our client for his Florence Arizona Immigration Court bond hearing. At oral arguments, we explained that our client was eligible for asylum relief, 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 contended that his lack of criminal record, designated address with contact information from his relative in the United States, ability to post bond, and eligibility for asylum relief clearly demonstrate that the bond should be reduced.  The Judge took our arguments and evidence into consideration and reduced the bond amount in half. Our client’s relative has thereafter posted bond and he is now out of detention to pursue his 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 jail case success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Should you have questions, feel free to contact our office for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }