CASE:  Termination of Proceedings after Joint Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Pakistanis
LOCATION: Philadelphia, PA

Our clients are Pakistani citizens who currently reside in Philadelphia, PA. They were on Withholding of Removal status. Their U.S. Citizen sons were US Citizens. Our client entered to the United States on a valid L-1 and L-2 visa in November 2000.  Later, they were granted withholding of removal in July 2006 by the Philadelphia Immigration Court.

In November 2013, our clients’ son became a naturalized U.S. citizen. However, for them to get a green card, their case should first be reopened in the Immigration Court for them to apply for adjustment of status either with the Court, or with the CIS should proceedings be terminated after reopening.

In May 2015, our clients contacted our office and sought legal assistance for their immigration matter. Our client retained us on May 14, 2015.  Upon retention, we first prepared and filed their U.S. citizen son’s I-130 petitions for them. We filed the I-130 petitions to the USCIS on May 20, 2015 and the USCIS approved the I-130s on October 5, 2015. Once the I-130s were approved, we filed a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen for our client to USICE-DHS office in Philadelphia.  Our cover brief explained how they got their withholding of removal status, approval of I-130, and their prima facie eligibility to apply for adjustment of status.

After the long review period, the DHS office in Philadelphia finally agreed to join in our Motion to Reopen and an assigned counsel signed on the Motion on April 11, 2016.  Once we received the Joint Motion to Reopen, we filed a Motion to the Philadelphia Immigration Court to request reopening of our clients’ cases so that they can apply for adjustment of status. Eventually, on April 28, 2016, the Philadelphia Immigration Court terminated our clients’ removal proceedings. Now, with the termination order and approved I-130 by their U.S. citizen son, our client can file the adjustment of status applications to the USCIS.

{ 0 comments }

CASE:  Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen and Terminate Proceedings
CLIENT: Pakistanis
LOCATION: Philadelphia, PA

Our clients are a Pakistani couple who currently reside in Philadelphia, PA. They were granted withholding of removal years ago.  Our client entered the United States on a valid L-1 and L-2 visa in November 2000.  Later, they were granted withholding of removal in July 2006 by the Philadelphia Immigration Court.  They have remained in the United States thereafter.

In November 2013, our clients’ son became a naturalized U.S. citizen. However, for them to get a green card, their case should first be reopened in the Immigration Court for them to apply for adjustment of status either with the Court, or with the CIS should proceedings be terminated after reopening.

In May 2015, our clients contacted our office and sought legal assistance for their immigration matter. After consultation, our client retained us on May 14, 2015.  Upon retention, we first prepared and filed their U.S. citizen son’s I-130 petitions for them. We filed the I-130 petitions to the USCIS on May 20, 2015 and the USCIS approved the I-130s on October 5, 2015. Once the I-130s were approved, we filed a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen for our client to USICE-DHS office in Philadelphia.  Our cover brief explained how they got their withholding of removal status, approved of I-130, and their prima facie eligibility to apply for adjustment of status.

On April 11, 2016, the DHS office in Philadelphia agreed to join in the Motion to Reopen and Terminate Proceedings. The Joint Motion was then filed to the Philadelphia Immigration Court and upon reopening and termination, their adjustment of status applications can then be filed to the USCIS.

{ 0 comments }

CASE:   Immigrant Visa / I-601A Hardship Waiver of Inadmissibility / I-212 Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission Into the United States After Deportation or Removal

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Ecuadorian

LOCATION: Quito, Ecuador (Visa Interview)

Our client came to the United States from Ecuador in March 1999 without inspection and admission. Later, he married his U.S. citizen wife in 2006. However, removal proceedings were initiated against him in March 2009 as an alien present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. With our assistance and representation, our client went to all of his court hearings and applied for Cancellation of Removal for Non-LPR. However, the Immigration Judge in the Cleveland Immigration Court denied our client’s application for relief.

After his case was denied, our client’s U.S. Citizen Wife filed an I-130 petition for him and this I-130 petition was approved on January 27, 2014. However, needed a waiver of inadmissibility to become a green card holder.

INA § 212(i) provides for a discretionary waiver of the entry without inspection inadmissibility ground. To qualify for the waiver, the alien must establish that his or her US Citizen spouse would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission. INA § 212(i)(1). In addition to the equities presented, the USCIS may consider the nature of the inadmissibility ground.

There is a seminal BIA case that deals with this waiver.  In Matter of Cervantes, 22 I & N Dec. 560 (BIA 1999), the BIA identified the factors to be considered in determining whether a qualifying relative would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission.  Those factors include: the presence of LPR or USC family ties both within and outside the United States; the conditions in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties to that country; the financial impact of departure from the United States; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to the unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate.

Before the I-130 was approved, our client took voluntary departure from the United States in November 2013 as he tried to get an immigrant visa through consular processing with an I-601 waiver. He went back to Ecuador. Once he returned there, with our legal assistance, we filed his immigrant visa package to the National Visa Center on June 27, 2014.

Our client’s I-601 application had a good chance since our client’s U.S. Citizen wife suffers from a great degree of medical and psychological hardship. In the I-601 brief and supporting documents, our office included extensive medical reports of his wife.  We argued that it would be extremely difficult for our client’s wife to get the same level of therapy and satisfactory access to medical services in Ecuador in case she joins our client there.

In our brief, we also argued that his wife will have difficulty in finding the same level of employment in Ecuador, and that his wife will face extreme financial and emotional difficulties if she joins him in Ecuador.

On February 12, 2015, we filed the I-601 waiver application which included the brief in support, his wife’s extensive medical and psychological examination records, and other documents that demonstrated hardship to his wife if she joins our client in Ecuador. Later, on November 25, 2015, our office also filed the  I-212 Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States after Deportation or Removal.

Eventually, his I-601 waiver and I-212 were approved on January 4, 2016. The U.S. Embassy in Quito, Ecuador informed our office that they scheduled an immigrant visa interview for our client. On January 26, 2016, our client appeared at his immigrant visa interview at the U.S. Embassy in Quito, and the Consulate officer approved his immigrant visa on the same day.

Now, our client can come back to the United States with an approved immigrant visa and he will get his green card in the mail within two months of his entry to the United States.  

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings Based on an Approved I-130 Immediate Relative Spousal Petition

CLIENT: Nepalese

LOCATION: Houston, TX

Our client is a Nepalese citizen who came to the U.S. on an F-1 Student Visa.   Our client and his wife married in August 2013.  When they married, our client’s wife was a green card holder. Our client’s wife filed the I-130 petition for our client in August 2013 and it was approved by the USCIS later. Our client filed his adjustment of status application along with the I-130 petition, but it was denied due to his failure to maintain his status. After his I-485 adjustment of status application was denied, a Notice to Appear was issued against our client, and he was placed into removal proceeding.

His wife became a naturalized U.S. citizen in July 2015. Our client contacted our office and consulted with us for his potential relief. Based on the approved I-130 and his wife’s recent naturalization, we determined that we could file a joint motion to terminate his proceedings. Our client retained our office on July 15, 2015.  

On July 27, 2015, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to terminate proceedings with the I-485 application and supporting documents. However, we did not get any response from the Houston DHS office regarding their consent to terminate our client’s proceedings. We then filed with the Immigration Court and since the DHS did not oppose, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings without prejudice on January 27, 2016.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition / I-485 Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Chinese
LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client is a Chinese citizen who came to the U.S. on a B-2 Visitor’s visa in September 2011. She has stayed in the United States since then. Because of her overstay, the Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceeding.

Our client currently resides in Ohio with her current U.S. Citizen husband. They were married in October. After our office was retained, our office filed an I-130 Petition with bona fide marriage evidence on January 15, 2015.  While the I-130 petition was pending, our client appeared at the Cleveland Immigration Court for her master calendar hearing.  Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office represented her at the hearing, did the pleading and sought for adjustment of status relief upon the approval of the I-130 petition.

Her I-130 petition was approved by the USCIS on June 24, 2015 without any interview or RFE request.  Once 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 in September 2015.

After her removal proceeding was terminated, our client retained us again for her I-485 adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on November 6, 2015. 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 January 26, 2016, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, OH USCIS. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our client.  After the interview, her I-485 application was approved.  Now, our client is a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition / I-485 Adjustment of Status / Response to Notice of Intent to Revoke

CLIENT: Nigerian

LOCATION: New Orleans, LA

Our Nigerian client came to the United States in August 2011 with a valid F-1 student visa to study in a college. However, he did not maintain status and was placed in removal proceedings in July 2012. After he got a Notice to Appear, he appeared at his initial master calendar hearing at the New Orleans Immigration Court without an attorney.

In May of 2014, he contacted our office and asked us whether we can take his case. He was married to a US Citizen, but he also had two previous marriages and divorces, also to US Citizens. We told him an I-130 can be filed, but that we need bona fides from his first two marriages also. We explained that the strength of his wife’s I-130 for him would also depend on how he can prove that his first two marriages were in good faith.

He retained our office on May 16, 2014. He married his U.S. wife in May 2014 and our office filed the I-130 petition for our client with a bona fide marriage exemption letter and bona fide marital documents. We organized the exhibits so that bona fide evidence from his first two marriages were also shown. We filed the I-130 application to the USCIS on June 12, 2014.

On June 17, 2014, our attorney Glen Yu appeared at his master calendar hearings via telephonic appearance. Attorney Yu did pleadings for our client, requested adjustment of status relief for our client, and requested a continuance based on a pending I-130 petition. However, the DHS requested a Velarde hearing to the Court. The DHS requested this hearing to determine whether proceedings should be continued to allow USCIS to adjudicate the I-130. DHS argued that our client’s marriage to his U.S. citizen spouse is presumptively invalid under immigration purposes since he married his wife after initiation of removal proceedings.

A Velarde Hearing is a hearing to establish whether good cause exists to continue proceedings for adjudication of a pending I-130 petition. A variety of factors may be considered, including, but not limited to: (1) DHS’ response to the Motion to continue; (2) whether the underlying visa petition is prima facie approvable; (3) the Respondent’s statutory eligibility for adjustment of status; (4) whether the Respondent’s application for adjustment merits a favorable exercise of discretion; and (5) the reason for the continuance and any other relevant factors. Matter of Hashimi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009).

The Velarde hearing for our client was scheduled for August 18, 2014. Prior to the hearing, our office filed a brief in support and more documents to demonstrate the bona fide nature of our client’s marriage to his U.S. citizen wife.  Attorney Sung Hee Yu from our firm prepared him and his wife extensively via conference calls. He also represented our client at the Velarde Hearing at the New Orleans Immigration Court on August 18, 2014.

The hearing went well and as a result, the Court concluded that our client’s I-130 petition is prima facie approvable. After the Velarde hearing, the USCIS scheduled the I-130 interview for our client and his U.S. citizen wife. Our office prepared them for their interview. On December 31, 2014, our client and his wife appeared at the USCIS New Orleans Field Office for their I-130 interview. The interview went well, and the USCIS approved the I-130 petition for our client on the same day.

Once his 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 New Orleans agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice on August 14, 2015.

After his removal proceeding was 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 September 14, 2015. 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 via conference call. On December 1, 2015, our client was interviewed at the New Orleans, LA USCIS.  Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our clients.

Although the interview went well, the USCIS New Orleans office issued Notice of Intent to Revoke our client’s I-130 petition. In the Notice of Intent to Revoke, the USCIS argued that our client’s marriage to her U.S. citizen spouse was in violation of Louisiana law so that the marriage is invalid. However, after careful review of related marital laws and local statutes, we determined that our client’s marriage to his wife was valid. Our office promptly filed the Response to Notice of Intent to Revoke on December 15, 2015. Eventually, on January 13, 2016, his I-485 application was approved.  Now, our client is a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Motion to Reopen and Rescind an In Absentia Order of Removal Based on Exceptional Circumstances
CLIENT: Bahamian
LOCATION: Miami, Florida

Our client was from the Bahamas and is a lawful permanent resident.  She was placed into removal proceedings due to a criminal conviction which she has tried to vacate for the last couple years. After removal proceedings were initiated, our client attended her master calendar hearings.

However, in July 2015, our client was in a great deal of pain and was admitted to the emergency room for a week.  Our client got very sick, especially on the master calendar hearing date. Eventually, she did not appear before the Court on her master calendar hearing date.   Because of her absence, an order of removal was issued against her. Once she learned about the order of removal, she immediately contacted our office and explained to us that why she was not able to attend the hearing.

Our client contacted and retained our office on August 20, 2015 for the Motion to Reopen and Rescind an in absentia order.  After we analyzed her story and the surrounding circumstances, our office determined that the Immigration Court will likely grant our client’s Motion to Reopen and Rescind an in absentia order based on exceptional circumstances.

In the Motion, we contended that our client could not attend the hearing due to her medical condition and her absence was inevitable due to the medical condition.  Our office included supporting documents such as a doctor’s letter, copy of prescription, and other supporting documents.  Eventually, our office filed the Motion on September 30, 2015 within the statutory time frame.  On November 3, 2015, the Miami 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 relief again.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings Based on Criminal Conviction Dismissal

CLIENT: Lebanese

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client is a Lebanese citizen and who has been a green card holder in the United States for more than 25 years. However, he was placed into removal proceedings in March 2012 due to his previous criminal record; specifically, a drug-related offense that he committed when he was a teenager.  Our client contacted us in March 2012 to seek legal assistance and representation at his removal proceedings.  Our office was retained on April 9, 2012.

According to our client’s Notice to Appear, he was removable for a criminal ground of deportability. Based on his removable charge, our office first sought for relief under Section 212(c) and got an individual hearing date. However, the likelihood of success for our client’s case was quite low. Nevertheless, our office did extensive researche and asked our client whether he was advised before he pled guilty for his charges at the county court.  Our client told us that he did not receive any advisement as required by Ohio criminal statute.

Under Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2003), the BIA held that “If a court with jurisdiction vacates a conviction based on a defect in underlying criminal proceedings, the Respondent no longer has a ‘conviction’ within the meaning of section 101(a)(48)(A). According to O.R.C Section 2943.031, the court must ask the following before the defendant entered the plea: “If you are not a citizen of the United States you are hereby advised that conviction of the offense to which you are pleading guilty (or no contest, when applicable) may have the consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States.”

As stated above, our client told us that he never had aforementioned advisement from the court before he pled guilty for his charge.  Thus, we contacted our client’s previous criminal attorney to file a Motion to Vacate conviction based on a defect in underlying criminal proceedings – that of having a lack of advisement or lack of substantial compliance with the advisement provisions of O.R.C. Section 2943.031 from the county court.

On November 13, 2014, the county court granted our client’s Motion to Vacate for his previous criminal conviction.  With that, our office filed a Motion to Terminate Proceedings to the Immigration Court and argued that our client is not removable anymore because the court with jurisdiction vacated convictions based on a defect in underlying criminal proceedings. We included the criminal court judges’ orders and other supporting documents, and argued that our client’s removal proceedings must be terminated.

On November 6, 2015, the Immigration Judge granted our Motion to Terminate Proceedings.  Our client got his green card back. .

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings Based on Approved I-130 Petition

CLIENT: Kenyan

LOCATION OF COURT: Atlanta, GA

LOCATION OF CLIENT: Alabama

Our client is from Kenya who came to the U.S. on a F-1 Student Visa in June 2001. However, she failed to maintain her F-1 status after that.  She was thereafter placed in removal proceedings in Atlanta, Georgia.

Our client married her U.S. citizen husband in May 2013 in Alabama. Her husband filed an I-130 petition on her behalf after they got married. Eventually, our client’s I-130 petition was approved in February 2015. She could not apply for adjustment of status by herself with the CIS, since her removal proceeding is still pending.

She contacted our office around May 2015 to seek legal assistance. She retained our office on June 4, 2015.

After our office was retained, we prepared and filed a request to join in a Motion to Terminate proceedings with an attached I-485 application and its supporting documents to the Atlanta ICE-DHS office. In less than a month, the DHS counsel in Atlanta agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Eventually, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice on October 1, 2015. Now, she can file her I-485 adjustment of status application with the CIS.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Termination of Proceedings / I-751

APPLICANT: Ghanaian

LOCATION: Columbus, OH

Our client contacted our office in July 2014 regarding his removal proceedings representation and I-751 application.

He is from Ghana and he married a U.S. citizen in August 2010. Through his marriage, he obtained a 2-year conditional green card in May 2011.  His conditional residency terminated in May 2013.

To comply with immigration requirements, our client and his wife had to file an I-751 Joint Petition to Remove Conditions. They filed the I-751 application first; however, they failed to appear at the I-751 interview because they were not informed of their interview date.  Our client’s initial I-751 application was thus denied. Later on, our client was placed in removal proceedings and had to appear for his Master Calendar hearing at the Cleveland Immigration Court on August 5, 2014. Our client retained our office on August 4, 2014 and Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu represented our client at his initial Master Calendar Hearing.

After the hearing, our office prepared an I-751 application for our client with other supplemental exhibits including a detailed brief on why they failed to appear at their initial I-751 interview.

On January 29, 2015, our office filed an I-751 application to the USCIS with multiple affidavits from his friends and family members, joint bank statements, utility bills, insurance policies, and photos of our client and her husband to demonstrate the bona fideness of their marriage.

Once the application was filed, the fingerprint notice was issued two weeks later. However, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) in July 2015 and requested our client to submit more bona fide evidence. In response to the RFE, our office prepared and filed the Response to RFE with several supplemental exhibits to the USCIS on August 4, 2015. Eventually, on August 19, 2015, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application and our client received his 10-year green card which removed the conditions.

Once our client received his 10-year green card, our office filed a Motion to Terminate proceedings with the Cleveland Immigration Court on August 31, 2015. On September 30, 2015, the Immigration Judge terminated our client’s removal proceedings.

{ 0 comments }