CASE: Motion to Reopen In Absentia Order of Removal

CLIENT: Mexican

LOCATION: Atlanta, Georgia

Our client was detained for being without status. He entered the country illegally over 10 years ago. Upon release with a bond he gave his proper address and the immigration service also had the address of his bond obligor. He and the obligor kept following up with immigration regarding his next hearing since he never received anything in the mail. On his next Order of Supervision appointment in September 9, 2010 (an regular appointment with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement to make sure you have not escaped), immigration told our client that he is deportable and that he has a final order for not showing up at the Atlanta Immigration Court on August 24, 2010. The rule is that if you don’t show up for Court, you will automatically have a final order of removal. Your only recourse if available is to file a Motion to Reopen. In this case the Motion was based on the fact that he never got the Notice to Appear nor his hearing notice. Our firm was consulted and we told him that we have to file a Motion to Reopen as soon as possible. We were immediately retained and on September 17, 2010, we filed a Motion to Reopen with the Atlanta Immigration Court. We argued that he never got notice of his hearing, was prima facie eligible to apply for Cancellation of Removal, filed within 1 month of the final order, showed up at his order of supervision, was prompt in retaining counsel, and that he had residence in Georgia and was not a flight risk. On October 4, 2010, the Immigration Judge in Atlanta granted our Motion. His final order is now lifted and thus won’t be deportable as of now. He would have an opportunity to apply for Cancellation of Removal with the Immigration Court.

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

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: Jail Case

CLIENT: Mexican

LOCATION: Ohio

CLIENT’S RESIDENCE: New Jersey

Our firm was retained on September 29, 2010 to have a Mexican national released on bond. He was detained in Seneca County Jail in Tiffin Ohio. Our contact was his employer in New Jersey. Prior to retention, we already told the contact what we needed. Our client came in the United States illegally in March 1999, had no criminal records, was employed, had a permanent home in the U.S., and had two U.S. Citizen children. Upon retention, we immediately contacted the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and explained that our client was not a flight risk. We showed documents including his bank statement, proof of lease, and birth certificates of his U.S. Citizen children. We explained that our client would be prima facie eligible for Cancellation of Removal. The next day, ICE granted our client’s release on a $5000 bond. We immediately spoke with our client’s contact in New Jersey and guided him in the process of posting a bond. We did our own research to look for specific bond companies in New Jersey to aid our client. Our office had to call ICE and the bond company several time to coordinate the information and make sure systems were updated regarding the bond posting. Our client’s contact was hoping he gets released before the weekend, or else he would have to spend an extra two days in jail. On October 1, 2010 Friday, at around 1:45pm, our client was released. He currently is in New Jersey awaiting his hearing where he would apply for cancellation for removal.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: Removal Proceedings, Adjustment of Status

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Senegalese

LOCATION: Ohio

Our client entered the U.S. using his brother’s passport back in 2001. He presented this at the airport customs and was let in by the officer. The officer checked the passport and asked a few questions to our client, as is customary, and he was able to enter despite using his brother’s passport.

Several years later, our client married a U.S. Citizen. Knowing than an I-601 hardship waiver was needed for his green card application due to his fraudulent entry with his brother’s passport, he filed everything together with the 601 waiver. The I-130 petition was approved, which means that the government believed the marriage was in good faith. The green card application though was denied, as well as the I-601 waiver. The denial pointed out that there was not enough hardship to meet the standards for the 601 waiver.

An appeal was filed to the AAO for the 601 waiver and after almost a year, the 601 was approved. However, our client was issued a Notice to Appear and was scheduled for a removal hearing with the Cleveland Immigration Court.

Our office was retained to represent him for removal proceedings. Days before the hearing, the government changed the Notice to Appear and alleged him as an “alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled” under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i). With this charge, even with the approval of the I-601 hardship waiver, our client would not be eligible for his green card. The government’s position was that our client’s entry with his brother’s passport was not an “admission” and that since he was not admitted, he can’t be eligible to adjust status as a permanent resident under INA § 245A.

At the Master hearing, we denied that allegation and the charge of removability. The Judge then set the case for a hearing on the issue. There were a line of cases addressing the issue, with arguments for both the government’s position and our position. Matter of Areguillin and Matter of Orozco were the two main cases at that time. Matter of Areguillin held that it’s the “procedural regularity” of the entry which results in “admission”.  The Orozco case though held that an entry on someone’s passport, such as our case, cannot be an admission, and thus people in this situation would not be able to adjust to permanent resident status despite an I-601 waiver.

Between the Master hearing and the Individual Hearing, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued an interim decision, Matter of Quilantan, which was on point with our case. It reaffirmed Areguillin in that procedural regularity is all that’s needed to be admitted in a particular status, and not the substance of the entry. Thus, someone who entered through customs, was questioned, inspected, and eventually let in despite a fake passport is considered “admitted”.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, we submitted documents to Court and to the government pertaining to our position that our client is in fact admitted and thus, with the waiver of inadmissibility granted despite our client’s fraudulent entry, should be eligible to to apply for permanent residency. At the hearing itself, we had a pre-hearing discussion with the government in which of Matter of Quilantan was discussed. The government agreed with our position and decided to terminate the case without even going through a hearing. The Immigration Judge discussed the issues and eventually terminated removal proceedings for our client.

Jurisdiction for his green card application now goes back to the USCIS in Columbus, Ohio, where his green card should be issued soon.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings for Adjustment of Status With CIS
NATIONALITY: Spanish
LOCATION: San Diego, California

Our client is a Spanish national who came to the U.S. on an R-1 Visa. She resides in San Diego, California. Prior to retaining our firm, she tried to apply for a change of non-immigrant status, got denied, was placed in removal proceedings, married a U.S. Citizen, and filed an I-130 petition and an I-485 green card application simultaneously. She already went to the San Diego Immigration Court several times while the petition was pending. She did not have an attorney and did not know procedurally what to do. Eventually the I-130 marriage petition was approved, however, at the green card interview, the officer told her that they did not have jurisdiction over her case. The green card application was administratively closed. She consulted with our firm on what to do next as she was confused. She had another hearing coming up with the San Diego Immigration Court. We explained that we can terminate removal proceedings and reopen her green card application. Our office was retained and within a few days, we filed a Motion to Terminate with the Immigration Court. The Motion was granted within two weeks. We then wrote a letter to the Chula Vista, CA CIS to reopen our client’s adjustment of status application. Within a few weeks, another green card interview was scheduled for our client. She went to the interview, passed it, and eventually obtained her 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. 

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: Bond Hearing With Immigration Judge. Detained Case.
NATIONALITY: Sri Lanka
WHERE DETAINED: York, Pennsylvania

This immigration release and bond redetermination approval was for a  Sri Lankan national who came to the U.S. on a B-2 visa a few years ago and overstayed. About 2 weeks ago, he was caught by immigration officers and was detained in York, Pennsylvania. A bond hearing was set for him with the Immigration Judge.

A week before his bond hearing, our office was retained. He was in a tough position because he did not have any relief from removal as of that point. He was not married, had no fear of returning to Sri Lanka good enough for asylum (plus the fact that he’s been in the U.S. for over a year). He mentioned he had a girlfriend who was a U.S. Citizen and they planned to get married. However, he’s in jail. Another factor the Immigration Courts look to is the presence of immediate family members in the United States. He did not have any. We explained to him the factors a Judge looks at in bond hearings – family members, availability of relief especially. We explained it is going to be tough but we’ll do our best.

We gathered as much evidence of his relationship with his girlfriend. One of his friends also submitted an affidavit of support to show his ability to pay a bond if one is issued. Despite the bond hearing date coming up and the fact that our office was only retained about 6 days before the bond hearing, we were able to submit all supporting documents to the Court a day before the bond hearing.

At the bond hearing, the Judge asked whether there was any relief as of this point. There was none but with the supporting documents we had, we argued that even if our client did not have relief, that upon release he will get married to his U.S. Citizen girlfriend. We argued that the relationship is bona fide based on the submitted supporting documents, a detailed letter and some pictures of the couple included. We argued that immediately after the marriage, his girlfriend would file an immigrant petition for him which upon approval would enable our client to file for adjustment of status (green card).

The Judge granted a release on bond and adjourned the hearing. The Judge also noted that after he gets released and goes back home to Chicago, we may file a Motion to Change Venue which he would grant.

Our client is now out of jail and back with his girlfriend in Chicago.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

{ 0 comments }