CASE: Joint Motion to Reopen and Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition

CLIENT: Moldovan

LOCATION: Philadelphia, PA; Baltimore, MD (DHS)

Our client is from Moldova who came to the U.S. on a J-1 visa in June 2009. She has remained in the United States past her authorized period of stay.  Later, she filed for asylum and withholding of removal in December 2009, but the Immigration Judge at the Baltimore Immigration Court denied all applications for relief.

She filed an appeal with the BIA, but in 2012, the Board affirmed the Immigration Judge’s findings and dismissed the appeal. She then proceeded to appeal her case at the Federal Circuit Court, but was denied.

Our client remained in the United States with the final order of removal.

She married her current U.S. citizen husband in February 2014. After she married her husband, they consulted our firm. They wish to know if she has any viable options for her immigration status.

After careful review, our office determined that we can file a Request to the DHS to join in a Motion to Reopen based on an I-130 approval (if the I-130 petition is approved) and Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum. After consultation, our client retained our office.

Once retained, our office prepared and filed the I-130 petition. The I-130 petition was filed on July 3, 2014. Her I-130 petition was scheduled for an interview, and they appeared at the USCIS Philadelphia USCIS Field Office on February 12, 2015. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our clients as well. The interview went well and the I-130 petition was subsequently approved by the USCIS on February 18. 2015.

Once the I-130 petition was approved, our office prepared and filed a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen and Terminate to the Baltimore DHS office on March 19, 2015. Our office prepared an extensive brief along with multiple supporting documents to request a favorable exercise of DHS’s discretion on this case.

We argued that DHS should consider the following factors as set forth in Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum: (1) whether adjustment of status was available at the prior hearing; (2) whether the alien is statutorily eligible for adjustment of status; and (3) whether the alien merits a favorable exercise of discretion. Bo Cooper, Motions to Reopen for Consideration of Adjustment of Status (May 17, 2001). In considering these factors, as delineated in William J. Howard’s October 24, 2005, Memorandum, “Where a motion to reopen for adjustment of status… is filed on behalf of an alien with substantial equities, no serious criminal or immigration violations, and who is legally eligible to be granted relief except that the motion is beyond the 90-day limitation contained in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23, strongly consider exercising prosecutorial discretion and join in this motion to reopen to permit the alien to pursue such relief to the immigration court.” William J. Howard, Prosecutorial Discretion (October 24, 2005).

Our office argued that if our client’s case is reopened, she will be prima facie eligible to adjust her status. Our client has been living in the United States since 2009, has no criminal record, and has an approved I-130 petition based on her marriage to a U.S citizen spouse.

Eventually, the DHS office agreed to join in our Motion to Reopen and Terminate on June 1, 2015. The DHS filed the joint motion to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and the BIA issued a decision on July 30, 2015 and reopened and terminated our client’s case. Now, our client can file her adjustment of status application to the USCIS directly at any time.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-824 based on approved I-140 (EB-3) and Consular Processing (Immigrant Visa)

CLIENT: Commercial Linen Producing Company Petitioner; Korean Beneficiary in South Korea

LOCATION: Petitioner: Virginia; Beneficiary: Seoul, South Korea

Our client is in South Korea who took voluntary departure in 2008 to South Korea as a result of his removal proceedings. However, before he left the United States, his prospective employer filed an I-140 petition for him in April 2008 and later this I-140 petition was approved.

Our client and his family members went back to South Korea and did not think that they could come back to the United States because of their voluntary departure. Nevertheless, his prospective employer contacted our office in June 2013 and asked our legal assistance for our client’s immigrant visa processing. It was a very difficult case, but with the approved I-140 petition, our client wanted to take his last try. His I-140 petition was still valid.

After we were retained, our office filed an I-824 application to the USCIS on June 23, 2013 to move his case from the USCIS to National Visa Center. After the I-824 was filed, everything went smoothly and the receipt notices came on time. The I-824 application was approved by the USCIS and this case was transferred to the National Visa Center.

After the I-824 approval, we filed the immigrant visa packets to the National Visa Center on July 25, 2014, who in turn forwarded the client’s materials to the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea. An interview notice was set for the client at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul. On April 2, 2015, our client and his family members appeared at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea. The interview went well; however, the consular officer wanted to see our client’s past immigration record including his previous I-485 denial. 

Our client did not have his I-485 denial notice, so our office filed a Track I FOIA on April 8, 2015 to the USCIS. On May 12, 2015, the USCIS issued a copy of his I-485 denial notice and our office immediately emailed our client this document. Then, our client submitted his I-485 denial notice and his other past immigration records.

Eventually, on May 27, 2015, the U.S. Embassy in Seoul issued immigrant visas for our client and his family members. With the approved Immigrant visas, they can come to the  United States as lawful permanent residents. 

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-821D Application for Consideration for Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals / I-765 Employment Authorization Document

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Mexican Client in Indiana

The USCIS issued a memorandum in August 2012 regarding deferred action of childhood arrivals cases (DACA). According to the USCIS Deferred Action Memorandum, an individual who meets the following criteria may apply for deferred action:

·         Was under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;

·         Came to the U.S. before reaching his/her 16th birthday;

·         Has continuously resided in the U.S. since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;

·         Was physically present in the U.S. on June 15, 2012, and at the time of application to the USCIS;

·         Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012;

·         Is currently in school, has graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, has obtained a GED, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard or the U.S. Armed Forces; and

·         Has not been convicted of a felony, a “significant misdemeanor,” three or more other misdemeanors, or does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety;

Our client initially came to the United States in August 1995 without inspection and admission through the U.S. / Mexico border when he was only 6 years old.

As of June 15, 2012, our client was twenty-three (23) years old.

Our client also finished high school in the United States in 2008.

Also, since his last entry to the United States in August 1995, our client never left.

He was physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012 and has continuously resided here since August of 1995.

Our client has never been convicted of a felony, a “significant misdemeanor,” three or more other misdemeanors, and does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Accordingly, our client was eligible for this relief.

After he retained our office, we informed him of all supporting documents we would need. Our client sent us supporting documents that proved our client’s education, physical presence in the United States, and his initial entry to the United States. Our office also prepared Form I-821D and I-765, and drafted a detailed cover letter demonstrating why our client should merit this relief.

On November 12, 2014, our office filed her I-821D and I-765 to the USCIS. However, on February 5, 2015, the USCIS issued Request for Evidence (RFE) and requested our client to submit more evidence to establish that he has continuously resided in the United States during the 5-year period immediately before June 15, 2102 and up to the time of filing. Our office prepared and filed the Response to RFE with more evidence to the USCIS on April 21, 2015. Eventually, on May 11, 2015, the USCIS approved our client’s I-821D and I-765, good for two years.

Our client can now work and study in the United States lawfully.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-821D Application for Consideration for Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals / I-765 Employment Authorization Document

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Albanian Client in Maryland, MD

As our office explained before on our website, the USCIS issued a memorandum in August 2012 regarding deferred action of childhood arrivals cases.  According to the USCIS Deferred Action Memorandum issued in August 2012, an individual who meets the following criteria may apply for deferred action:

• Was under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
• Came to the U.S. before reaching his/her 16th birthday;
• Has continuously resided in the U.S. since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;
• Was physically present in the U.S. on June 15, 2012, and at the time of application to the USCIS;
• Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012;
• Is currently in school, has graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, has obtained a GED, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard or the U.S. Armed Forces; and
• Has not been convicted of a felony, a “significant misdemeanor,” three or more other misdemeanors, or does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety;

As of June 15, 2012, our client was twenty-one (21) years old.   Also, our client was studying at a college in the state of Washington when he initially filed his DACA. Our client graduated from high school in the United States.  Also, since his last entry to the United States in November 2004, our client never left.

He was physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012 and has continuously resided here since November 2004. Our client has never been convicted of a felony, a “significant misdemeanor,” three or more other misdemeanors, and does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.  So, our client was clearly eligible for deferred action. Eventually, he filed for the deferred action and his DACA was approved in March 2013.

In early January of 2015, he retained our office for the renewal of his DACA application.  Our client sent us supporting documents that prove our client’s education history, physical presence in the United States, and his initial entry to the United States.  Our office also prepared Form I-821D and I-765, and drafted a detailed cover letter demonstrating why our client should merit this relief.

On January 8, 2015, our office filed his I-821D and I-765 to the USCIS.  Eventually, on March 20, 2015, the USCIS approved our client’s I-821D and I-765.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Joint Motion to Reopen and Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition

CLIENT: Pakistani
LOCATION: Indiana; San Francisco (EOIR)

Our client is from Pakistan who came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitor’s visa in May 2010. He remained in the United States even after his authorized stay expired.  Later, he filed for asylum and withholding of removal. However, he could not attend his hearing due to an emergency medical issue. He even notified the immigration court but his submission was procedurally incorrect (this was used as an exhibit in our motion). Subsequently, he received an order of removal in absentia. A few months later, his jewelry store got robbed too, leaving them with no money at that time to afford a lawyer for a proper Motion to Reopen.

Our client remained in the United States with the final order of removal. He married his current U.S. citizen wife. His wife filed an I-130 petition in April 2014 with help from of our office, which was subsequently approved by the USCIS in November 2014.

Our client and his wife were wondering whether he has any viable option for his immigration situation.  After careful review, our office determined that we can file a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen based on the I-130 approval and Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum.

Once retained, our office filed a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen and Terminate to the San Francisco DHS office on February 13, 2015. Our office prepared an extensive brief along with multiple supporting documents to request a favorable exercise of DHS’s discretion on this case. We argued that DHS should consider the following factors as set forth in Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum: (1) whether adjustment of status was available at the prior hearing; (2) whether the alien is statutorily eligible for adjustment of status; and (3) whether the alien merits a favorable exercise of discretion. Bo Cooper, Motions to Reopen for Consideration of Adjustment of Status (May 17, 2001). In considering these factors, as delineated in William J. Howard’s October 24, 2005, Memorandum, “Where a motion to reopen for adjustment of status… is filed on behalf of an alien with substantial equities, no serious criminal or immigration violations, and who is legally eligible to be granted relief except that the motion is beyond the 90-day limitation contained in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23, strongly consider exercising prosecutorial discretion and join in this motion to reopen to permit the alien to pursue such relief to the immigration court.” William J. Howard, Prosecutorial Discretion (October 24, 2005).

Our office argued that if our client’s case is reopened, he will be prima facie eligible to adjust his status. Our client has been living in the United States since 2010, has no criminal record, and has an approved I-130 petition based on his marriage to his U.S citizen spouse.

As a result, the DHS office agreed to join in our Motion to Reopen and Terminate. The DHS filed the joint motion to the San Francisco Immigration Court, and the San Francisco Immigration Court re-opened and terminated our client’s case on March 3, 2015. Now he can file for adjustment of status and work permit with the CIS.

{ 0 comments }

CASE:   Immigrant Visa / I-601A Hardship Waiver of Inadmissibility

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Mexican

LOCATION: Ohio / Ciudad Juarez, Mexico (Visa Interview)

Our client came to the United States from Mexico in July 2003 without inspection and admission. When he made his entry to the U.S., he was only 16 year old.

He married his U.S. citizen wife in 2011 and they have a U.S. citizen child together. Through our office’s assistance, his U.S. Citizen wife filed an I-130 petition for him on July 19, 2013. This I-130 petition was approved on January 15, 2014.

However, our client cannot file for adjustment of status due to his ground of inadmissibility. He needs a waiver of inadmissibility to become a green card holder – a 601A provisional waiver.

Under current law, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are not eligible to adjust status in the United States must travel abroad and obtain an immigrant visa. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence while in the United States must obtain a waiver of inadmissibility to overcome the unlawful presence bars under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act before they can return to the United States

Last year, the USCIS announced of new policy called the provisional unlawful presence waiver. Beginning March 4, 2013, certain immigrant visa applicants who are spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens (immediate relatives) can apply for provisional unlawful presence waivers before they leave the United States. The provisional unlawful presence waiver process allows individuals, who only need a waiver of inadmissibility for unlawful presence, to apply for a waiver in the United States.

The new process is expected to shorten the time U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives while those family members are obtaining immigrant visas to become lawful permanent residents of the United States.

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.

Our client’s I-601A application had a good chance since our client’s U.S. Citizen wife suffers from a great degree of medical hardship. Also, his U.S. citizen son has medical hardships as well. In the I-601A brief and supporting documents, our office included extensive medical reports of his wife.  We argued that if he was removed from the United States, extreme hardship to his husband is clearly foreseeable and evident.  His wife has ongoing medical hardships and she would not be able to take care of her own needs and the bulk of their family chores, most importantly taking care of their young child. Also, it would be extremely difficult for her to get the same level of therapy and satisfactory access to medical services in Mexico in case she joins our client there.

In our brief, we also argued that our client and his wife have maintained strong family ties in the United States, that his wife will have difficulty in finding the same level of employment in Mexico, that our client has good employment in the United States, and that his U.S. citizen child and his wife will face extreme financial and emotional difficulties if he is removed.

On August 14, 2014, we filed the I-601A waiver application which included the brief in support, his wife’s extensive medical examination records, and other documents that demonstrated hardship to his wife if he is removed from the United States.

Eventually, his I-601A waiver was approved on October 22, 2014.

Once his I-601A waiver was approved, he retained our office again for his immigrant visa processing. Our office prepared and filed his immigrant visa application on November 26, 2014. In February 2015, the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico informed our office that they scheduled an immigrant visa interview for our client. Our client went back to Mexico to appear at his interview on March 5, 2015. On March 5, 2015, our client appeared at his immigrant visa interview at the Consulate, and the Consulate officer approved his immigrant visa on the same day.

Now, our client is back in the United States with an approved immigrant visa and he will get his green card in the mail within two weeks.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-130 Approval / Velarde Hearing in Immigration Court

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, 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 are 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. Attorney JP Sarmiento accompanied them at the interview. The interview went well, and the USCIS approved the I-130 petition for our client on the same day. With the approved I-130 petition, we can terminate his removal proceedings with the cooperation with New Orleans DHS office.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-821D Application for Consideration for Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals / I-765 Employment Authorization Document

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Korean Client in Dayton, OH

As our office explained before on our website, the USCIS issued a memorandum in August 2012 regarding deferred action of childhood arrivals cases.  According to the USCIS Deferred Action Memorandum issued in August 2012, an individual who meets the following criteria may apply for deferred action:

◾Was under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;

◾Came to the U.S. before reaching his/her 16th birthday;

◾Has continuously resided in the U.S. since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;

◾Was physically present in the U.S. on June 15, 2012, and at the time of application to the USCIS;

◾Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012;

◾Is currently in school, has graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, has obtained a GED, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard or the U.S. Armed Forces; and

◾Has not been convicted of a felony, a “significant misdemeanor,” three or more other misdemeanors, or does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety;

Our client’s brother contacted our office immediately after he heard of this relief on the news.  His younger brother, our client, initially came to the United States in December 2000 with a valid B-2 visitor’s visa when he was only 8 years old.

As of June 15, 2012, our client was twenty (20) years old.   Also, our client was studying at a college in Dayton, Ohio. Our client went to grade school, middle school and graduated from high school in the United States.  Also, since his last entry to the United States in December 2000, our client never left the United States.

He was physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012 and has continuously resided here since December, 2000. Our client has never been convicted of a felony, a “significant misdemeanor,” three or more other misdemeanors, and does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.  So, our client was clearly eligible for deferred action.

In November 2012, through our office’s legal assistance, our client’s I-821D and I-765 were successfully approved. In September 2014, he retained our office again for the renewal of his DACA application.  Our client and his family members sent us supporting documents that prove our client’s education history, physical presence in the United States, and his initial entry to the United States.  Our office also prepared Form I-821D and I-765, and drafted a detailed cover letter demonstrating why our client should merit this relief.

On September 30, 2014, our office filed his I-821D and I-765 to the USCIS.  Eventually, on December 17, 2014, the USCIS approved our client’s I-821D and I-765.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: NACARA Suspension of Deportation

CLIENT: Guatemalans

LOCATION: Cleveland Immigration Court (EOIR)

Our clients came to the United States in 1989 with their parents from Guatemala. They were not inspected and admitted when they came to the United States. Our clients were very young children when they came to the United States. In 1989, their father filed an asylum application. Our clients were derivative applicants of the asylum application and the asylum application is classified under ABC benefits. Ever since, our clients have lived in the United States. The Order to Show Cause were issued against our clients and remaining members of their family in the 90s. Their deportation proceedings (later removal proceedings) were initiated against. Our clients were riders of their mother’s NACARA case until 2013 when she passed away.

They contacted our office in 2013 after they appeared at their master calendar hearings which took place after their mother’s death.  After careful review of their cases, we determined that they are eligible for NACARA Suspension of Deportation relief at the immigration court.

Under immigration law, a Guatemalan who is in either of the two categories described below, and who has not been convicted of an aggravated felony, is eligible for NACARA benefits:

1)      Category 1:

• Entered the U.S. on or before October 1, 1990;
• Registered for ABC benefits on or before December 31, 1991; and
• Has not been apprehended at time of entry after December 19, 1990.

2)      Category 2:

• Filed an application for asylum on or before April 1, 1990.

Moreover, to qualify for NACARA suspension of deportation, the applicant must merit a favorable exercise of discretion, in addition to proving the following:

• Continuous physical presence in the United States for seven years before the application for suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal is filed;
• Good moral character during the seven year period; and
• Removal would cause extreme hardship to the applicant or the applicant’s USC or LPR spouse, parent, or child.

Our clients’ case sufficiently meets the eligibility requirement and we determined that they will likely receive favorable exercise of discretion from the Court. After the Master Calendar Hearing, the Court scheduled an individual hearing date on November 4, 2014.

Our firm worked with our clients and their friends and family members for the application and supplemental documents. We gathered a lot documents regarding their good moral character and continuous residency. Our clients did not have any criminal convictions. We also contacted our client’s friends for supporting documents and letters of support.

In preparing our client for the Individual Hearing, Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office talked to our clients through conference calls. Our firm eventually was able to gather supporting documents and prepared supplemental evidence with multiple exhibits, and arranged them pursuant to the specific elements of NACARA Suspension of Deportation.

At the Individual Hearing on November 4, 2014, Attorney Yu represented our clients at the Cleveland Immigration Court. Prior to the hearing, Attorney Yu, DHS counsel, and the Immigration Judge had a pre-trial conference. Based on the extensive record and our clients’ background, the DHS agreed that our clients met all of the requisite elements of NACARA relief and deferred their decision to the Court. As a result, on December 1, 2014, the Cleveland Immigration Court granted our clients’ NACARA Suspension of Deportation relief. They have been here since 1989 and suffered a lot in the past. They finally are green card holders.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Adjustment of Status (I-485) / Motion to Reopen and Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition

CLIENT: Indonesian
LOCATION: Boston, MA

Our client is from Indonesia who came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitor’s visa in March 2004. After she entered to the United States, she has remained in the United States even after her authorized stay expired.

Later, she filed for asylum and withholding of removal in April 2006, but the Immigration Judge in San Francisco, CA denied all applications for relief. She filed an appeal to the BIA, but in June 2007, the Board affirmed the Immigration Judge’s findings and dismissed the appeal. She then proceeded to appeal her case in Federal Circuit Court, was denied, and she even filed a Motion to Reopen which was denied in January 2013.

Our client remained in the United States despite the final order of removal.

She then married her current U.S. citizen husband in August 2012. Her husband filed an I-130 petition in November 2012, which was subsequently approved by the USCIS in November 2013.

Our client and her husband were wondering whether she has any viable option for her immigration status.  After careful review, our office determined that we can file a Request to Joint in a Motion to Reopen based on the I-130 approval and Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum. Our client retained our office on December 4, 2013.

Once retained, our office prepared and filed a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen and Terminate to the San Francisco DHS office on February 21, 2014. Our office prepared an extensive brief along with several supporting documents to request a favorable exercise of DHS’s discretion on this case.

We argued that DHS should consider the following factors as set forth in Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum: (1) whether adjustment of status was available at the prior hearing; (2) whether the alien is statutorily eligible for adjustment of status; and (3) whether the alien merits a favorable exercise of discretion. Bo Cooper, Motions to Reopen for Consideration of Adjustment of Status (May 17, 2001). In considering these factors, as delineated in William J. Howard’s October 24, 2005, Memorandum, “Where a motion to reopen for adjustment of status… is filed on behalf of an alien with substantial equities, no serious criminal or immigration violations, and who is legally eligible to be granted relief except that the motion is beyond the 90-day limitation contained in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23, strongly consider exercising prosecutorial discretion and join in this motion to reopen to permit the alien to pursue such relief to the immigration court.” William J. Howard, Prosecutorial Discretion (October 24, 2005).

Our office argued that if our client’s case is reopened, she will be prima facie eligible to adjust her status. Our client has been living in the United States since 2004, has no criminal record, and has an approved I-130 petition based on the marriage to U.S citizen spouse.

As a result, the DHS office agreed to join in our Motion to Reopen and Terminate on April 21, 2014. The DHS filed the joint motion to the San Francisco Immigration Court, and our client case was reopened and terminated by the San Francisco Immigration Court on July 8, 2014.

Once her case was terminated she retained our office again for her I-485 adjustment of status application. Our firm prepared and filed the Adjustment of Status Application and the Employment Authorization Document application on July 22, 2014.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time.

Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our client via conference call. On November 3, 2014, our client was interviewed at the Boston, MA USCIS.  The interview went well, and on the same day, her green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }