CASE: Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT in Immigration Court

CLIENT: Cameroonian

LOCATION: Memphis Immigration Court

Our Cameroonian client came to the United States in December 1999 on an F-1 student visa. In July 2001, he filed an asylum application to the USCIS, was interviewed by the USCIS, and later his case was referred to the Immigration Court.  Thereafter, a Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceedings. After he got the Notice to Appear, he appeared at his initial master calendar hearing at the Memphis Immigration Court with his previous attorney.

His removal proceedings were continued, but he could not appear at his individual hearing in April 2003 due to hospitalization.  Thus, the Court found him removable and ordered him removed in absentia.

Later, in April 2011, he filed Motion to Reopen with assistance of his previous immigration counsel.  However, this Motion to Reopen was denied by the Court in July 2011.

Thereafter, he contacted our office to determine whether he can file a Motion to Reopen again.  After consultation, we explained to him that the only way the Court can reopen his case is based on changed country conditions in Cameroon.  It is because our client’s second Motion to Reopen can be considered untimely filed and numerically barred.

Our client decided to retain our office on November 22, 2011 for a Motion to Reopen based on changed country conditions.

Under immigration law, if an applicant seeks to make an asylum claim and a final order of removal has been entered and the ninety-day filing deadline for motions to reopen has passed, the BIA and the majority of Circuit Courts have found that the applicant may only file the asylum application through a motion to reopen and only under the “changed country conditions” provision of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i).  Thus, our office prepared the Motion to Reopen based on the changed country conditions in Cameroon.

On March 6, 2012, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Memphis Immigration Court.

W included a detailed affidavit regarding his involvement in a political activist group in Cameroon, and several affidavits from his fellow members who confirmed his involvement with the organization.  We claimed that the number of arrests and detentions of his political group member had recently escalated since his original removal hearing in 2003 resulting in changed country conditions.  We also attached a letter from a human rights officer in which he stated that he knew our client’s political involvement in Cameroon. Moreover, other supporting documents such as newspaper articles and a country report of Cameroon were submitted (24 exhibits).  On March 29, 2012, the DHS filed a Response in Opposition to our Motion.  Nevertheless, on May 2, 2012, the Memphis Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case.

Once his case was  reopened, he retained our office again. Our attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu appeared at his master calendar hearing via telephonic appearance and his individual hearing was scheduled on September 29, 2014 at the Memphis Immigration Court.

Our client was persecuted and harmed in Cameroon based on his political opinion and movement.  Our client was scared to go back home to Cameroon, fearing that he will be persecuted based on his political opinion. Moreover, our client’s late father and his uncle were mistreated and harmed in Cameroon due to their political opinion as well.

We helped him file his asylum application and represented him in immigration court hearings. We also asked him to provide supporting documents corroborating his claim, some of which were a letter from his family, colleagues and friends in Cameroon. Our firm also did some research on articles related to his claim, and the type of persecution he will experience in Cameroon if sent back.

Our client’s individual hearing was scheduled on September 29, 2014 at the Memphis Immigration Court. Attorney Sung Hee Yu from our firm prepared him extensively. He also represented our client at his Individual Hearing at the Memphis Immigration Court.

Prior to the hearing, the Immigration Judge held a pre-trial conference with Attorney Yu and the DHS counsel. During the pre-trial conference, all of the possible issues were examined. At the conclusion of the conference, withholding of removal was granted.

After the hearing, the Immigration Judge granted Withholding of Removal for our client based on his persecution in Cameroon. His removal will be withheld and our client can get his Employment Authorization Document and will not be deported.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-130 / BIA Remand / Stokes Interview

CLIENT: Canadian

LOCATION: New York, NY

Our client came from Canada in 2002 as a visitor. He marrie his U.S. Citizen wife in October 2002. Our client has stayed in the United States since the inception of marriage and his authorized period of stay expired. Due to his overstay, our client was placed in removal proceedings in April 2010. He already had an I-130 approval but when he filed for adjustment of status on his own, they denied it and placed him in removal proceedings, and revoked the I-130.

He retained our office in 2010 for legal assistance for his removal proceedings representation and I-130 filing.

Unfortunately, on July 2, 2010, the USCIS New York office denied our client’s I-130 petition, after an almost three-hour Stokes interview. Before and at the interview, extensive evidence of bona fide marriage covering 8 years of marriage was submitted. The couple was able to answer a majority of the questions in the two and half hour interview, and the grounds and discrepancies relied upon by the USCIS in denying the I-130 compared to the majority and relevance of the correctly answered questions together with the extensive evidence was relatively minor.

In response to this denial decision, we timely filed a Notice of Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals on July 29, 2010.  The BIA appeal was pending for a long time. Eventually, on May 9, 2012, the BIA found that a remand is warranted for our client’s case.  As a result, on September 29, 2012, our client and his U.S. Citizen wife appeared at the USCIS New York Field Office for another I-130 interview.

Even after the second interview, the I-130 remained pending without any issuance of any RFEs or Notice of Intent to Deny. In the meantime, we filed a Motion for Continuance based on the pending I-130 petition. The New York Immigration Court kept granting our Motions, and on October 28, 2013, the Immigration Judge administratively closed our client’s removal proceedings. Nevertheless, the I-130 petition remained pending.

In August 2014, the New York USCIS Field Office sent us another Stokes Interview request for our client and his wife. We prepared our clients extensively regarding their 12-year marital life. On August 20, 2014, our clients appeared at the New York USCIS Field Office for their second Stokes Interview. Attorney JP Sarmiento from our office also accompanied them as well. Finally, the USCIS approved our client’s I-130 petition. Now, our client can file for adjustment of status after the Immigration Court grants our Motion to Re-calendar and Terminate.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Velarde Hearing in Immigration Court

CLIENT: Nigerian

LOCATION: New Orleans Immigration Court

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. The Immigration Judge granted a continuance based on the pending I-130 petition. His next master calendar hearing is scheduled for October 2015. Until then, and presumable eligible for further continuances, our client and his wife can wait for adjudication of the I-130 petition.

{ 0 comments }

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

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Ugandan Client in Toledo, OH

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 July 1989 on a valid F-2 visa as a derivative of an F-1 Student visa holder when she was only 3 years old.

As of June 15, 2012, our client was twenty-six (26) years old.

Our client also finished high school in the United States.

Also, since her last entry to the United States in July 1989, our client never left the United States.

She was physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012 and has continuously resided here since July of 1989.

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 she retained our office, we informed her 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 her 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 6, 2013, our office filed her I-821D and I-765 to the USCIS. Eventually, on July 31, 2014, 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: Motion to Remand / Reopen based on Pending I-130 Petition
CLIENT: Moldovan
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States with a valid J-1 visa from Romania in June 2007. He remained in the United States for a time longer than permitted. Later, he was placed in deportation proceedings due to his overstay and a Notice to Appear was issued. His asylum relief was denied by the Immigration Judge in April 2012, but an appeal was timely filed.  The BIA appeal was pending when our client contacted our office in March 2014.

While the BIA appeal was pending, our client married his U.S. citizen wife in February 2013. His wife filed an I-130 petition for our client on March 7, 2013.  He contacted our office for legal assistance for a Motion to Remand and possible adjustment of status if the Motion is granted.  We explained to him that the Motion to Remand procedure and he retained our office on April 8, 2014. On April 17, 2014, we prepared and filed a Motion to Remand for Adjustment of Status Based on a Pending I-130 on behalf our client. You typically want the I-130 to be approved prior to filing the Motion to Remand, but by submitting the actual I-130 application itself and its supporting documents attached to the Motion, you can show that it is approvable.

In Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992), the BIA found that a motion to remand must conform to the same standards as a motion to reopen, where the respondent presents new evidence which would likely change the result of the case. In a Motion to Reopen before the BIA, the Applicant must show that the evidence is material, unavailable at time of original hearing, and could not have been discovered or presented at the original hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). In this case, adjustment of status relief was not available for our client at his previous hearing since he was not married his U.S. Citizen wife.

Our office filed a Motion to Remand for Adjustment of Status based on a pending I-130 to the BIA on April 17, 2014. We argued that our client will be eligible for adjustment of status once the I-130 is approved since he had a legal entry to the U.S., has no criminal records, and has no other grounds of inadmissibility. We also attached a lot of bona fide marital evidence between our client and his U.S. citizen wife to demonstrate that  the I-130 petition is approvable.

While his motion was pending before the BIA, he and his wife appeared for the I-130 interview on May 5, 2014. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our client at our office.  On the day of our client’s I-130 interview, our attorney accompanied them at the Cleveland, OH USCIS. The interview went well, and the I-130 petition was approved.

On June 6, 2014, the BIA granted our motion, reopened our client’s case, and the record was remanded for further proceedings.

{ 0 comments }

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

CLIENT: Indonesian
LOCATION: Kentucky; San Francisco (EOIR)

Our client is from Indonesia who came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitor’s visa in March 2004. She has remained in the United States past her authorized period of stay.  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 with 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 at the Federal Circuit Court, but was denied. She even filed a Motion to Reopen, which was also denied in January 2013.

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

She 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 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 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 multiple supporting documents to request a favorable exercise of DHS’s discretion on this case. Our client’s husband was a member of the US army, deployed in Afghanistan several times, and that was part of our argument.

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.

Eventually, 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 will be reopened and terminated soon.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Asylum in Immigration Court

CLIENT: Chinese

LOCATION: Philadelphia Immigration Court

Our Chinese client came to the United States in January 2009 without inspection and admission. After that, he filed an asylum application in July 2009 to the USCIS, but his case was referred to the immigration court. Thereafter, a Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceedings. After he got the Notice to Appear, he appeared at his initial master calendar hearing at the Los Angeles Immigration Court with his previous attorney.

In July 2012, he moved to West Virginia from California. He contacted our office and asked us whether we can take his case. He retained our office on August 27, 2012.

We then filed a Change of Venue Motion to the Los Angeles Immigration Court which was later granted by the court. His venue was changed from Los Angeles, CA to Philadelphia, PA. Our attorney Glen Yu appeared at his master calendar hearings and his individual hearing was scheduled on March 28, 2014 at the Philadelphia Immigration Court.

Our client was persecuted and harmed in China based on his Christian belief. Our client was scared to go back home to China, fearing that he will be persecuted based on his religious belief. While he was in China, our client attended several home church meetings. As a result, he was arrested and detained by the Chinese police and he experienced harm and mistreatment in numerous occasions.

We helped him file his asylum application and represented him in immigration court hearings. We also asked him to provide supporting documents corroborating his claim, some of which were a letter from her family, colleagues and friends in China. Our firm also did some research on articles related to his claim, and the type of persecution he will experience in China if sent back.

Our client’s individual hearing was scheduled on March 28, 2014 at the Philadelphia Immigration Court. Attorney Sung Hee Yu from our firm prepared him extensively. He also represented our client at his Individual Hearing at the Philadelphia Immigration Court.

Prior to the hearing, Immigration Judge held a pre-trial conference with Attorney Yu and the DHS counsel. It was a 90-minute conference, and all of the possible issues were examined. At the conclusion of the conference, withholding of removal was granted.

After the hearing, the Immigration Judge granted Withholding of Removal for our client based on his past persecution in China. His removal will be withheld and our client can get his Employment Authorization Document and will not be deported.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-360 Special Immigrant Juvenile Status Petition

CLIENT: Guatemalan

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in September 2012 from Guatemala. He came to the United States without the inspection and admission and was caught at the border. After the DHS released him, he was placed in removal proceedings. He came to Cleveland, Ohio to be reunited with his older brother who resides in the Cleveland area.

He retained our office in April 2013 for representation in his removal proceedings. On June 4, 2013, our client appeared at the Cleveland Immigration Court for his master calendar hearing. Attorney Yu from our office represented him, did pleadings and sought asylum relief. After the hearing, our office also sought other options for our client since he was a minor.

Section 203(b)(4) of the INA allocates a percentage of immigrant visas to individuals considered “special immigrants” under section 101(a)(27) of the INA, including those aliens classified as special immigrant juveniles under Section 101(a)(27)(J). “Special Immigrant Juvenile” includes only those juveniles deemed eligible for long-term foster care based on abuse, neglect, or abandonment.  To be eligible as a SIJ, the DHS’ express consent to the juvenile court’s dependency order is required. Then, the approved SIJ petition (Form I-360) makes a minor petitioner immediately eligible to adjust status by filing an adjustment of status application.

Our client was 17 years old when he contacted our office. In fact, our client was not supported by his parents and had to work in farms to support himself since he was 8 years old in Guatemala. Our client’s sister-in-law, who is a U.S. citizen and lives with our client, would like to be a legal guardian of our client. With our help, she filed a complaint for him to be deemed a neglected child. The complaint was filed to the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court on October 10, 2013.

The Juvenile court hearing was scheduled on November 26, 2013. Attorney JP Sarmiento represented our client and his sister-in-law at the hearing. Eventually, on the same day, the court found that our client is neglected and dependent and our client’s sister-in-law was appointed legal guardian.

After that, our office filed the I-360 application on December 2, 2013 to the USCIS. The application was supported by a court order declaring dependency by the juvenile court, court order deeming the juvenile eligible for long-term foster care due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment, determination from the juvenile court that it is in our client’s interest not to be returned to Guatemala, and his birth certificate.

Our client appeared for his I-360 interview on January 10, 2014 at the Cleveland USCIS Field Office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office also accompanied our client as well. However, after the interview, the USCIS issued the Notice of Intent to Deny.  Specifically, the USCIS alleged that the juvenile court’s order was not sufficient enough to adjudicate his I-360 petition because the juvenile court did not expressly declare that it is in our client’s interest not to be returned to Guatemala.

After the issuance of the NOID, our office contacted the juvenile court and sought for possible amendment of the judge’s decision. In response to our request, the juvenile court issued an amended decision and held that the sentence regarding the child’s best interests was omitted. The court found that it is not in the best interests of our client to be returned to Guatemala. Our office filed the response to the NOID on February 3, 2014 along with juvenile court’s new decision.

Eventually, the USCIS approved our client’s I-360 petition on February 19, 2014. Now, our office can terminate his proceedings with the Immigration Court. Once it is terminated, our client can file his adjustment of status application.

{ 0 comments }

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

CLIENT: Peruvian
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client is from Peru who came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitor’s visa in July 2002 with his family. When he came to the United States, he was a only a minor.

Later, his father filed for asylum and withholding of removal, but the Immigration Judge in Cleveland denied all applications for relief in February 2010. Accordingly, our client’s asylum relief (our client was a derivate applicant of his father’s asylum application) was denied as well.

His father filed an appeal to the BIA, but in May 2012, the Board affirmed the Immigration Judge’s findings and dismissed the appeal. Unfortunately, our client’s father was deported soon after the BIA appeal was dismissed.

Our client remained in the United States despite the final order of removal. He was under order of supervision. He married his current U.S. citizen wife in September 2012, and he inquired on whether he has any viable option for his immigration status.  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. Our client retained our office on September 11, 2012.

Once retained, our client’s wife filed the I-130 petition for our client on September 18, 2012. Our office prepared and filed the petition. The I-130 interview was scheduled and prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients at our office. On March 5, 2013, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied them as well. Eventually, on April 17, 2013, the I-130 petition was approved.

While the I-130 was pending, our office also filed Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen and Terminate to the Cleveland DHS office on October 1, 2012. 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 2002, has no criminal record, was a minor at the time of the entry to the U.S., and has an approved I-130 petition.

As a result, the DHS office agreed to join in our Motion to Reopen and Terminate. The DHS filed the joint motion to the BIA in September 2013. Finally, the BIA ordered our client’s case to be reopened and terminated our client’s case on November 26, 2013. Now, he can file an I-485 adjustment of status application to the USCIS for his permanent residency.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Dependency Hearing at Juvenile Court

CLIENT: Guatemalan

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in September 2012 from Guatemala. He came to the United States without the inspection and admission and was caught at the border. After that the DHS released him, but he was placed in removal proceedings. He came to Cleveland, OH to be reunited with his older brother who resides in the Cleveland area.

He retained our office in April 2013 for representation at his deportation proceedings. On June 4, 2013, our client appeared at the Cleveland Immigration Court for his master calendar hearing. Attorney Yu from our office represented him, did pleadings and sought asylum relief. After the hearing, our office also sought other options for our client since he was a minor.

Section 203(b)(4) of the INA allocates a percentage of immigrant visas to individuals considered “special immigrants” under section 101(a)(27) of the INA, including those aliens classified as special immigrant juveniles under Section 101(a)(27)(J). “Special Immigrant Juvenile” includes only those juveniles deemed eligible for long-term foster care based on abuse, neglect, or abandonment.  To be eligible as a SIJ, the DHS’ express consent to the juvenile court’s dependency order is required. Then, the approved SIJ petition (Form I-360) makes a minor petitioner immediately eligible to adjust status by filing an adjustment of status application.

Our client was 17 years old when he contacted our office. In fact, our client was not supported by his parents and had to work in farms to support himself since he was 8 years old in Guatemala. Our client’s sister-in-law, who is a U.S. citizen and lives with our client, would like to be a legal guardian of our client. With our help, she filed a complaint for him to be deemed a neglected child to Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court on October 10, 2013.

The Juvenile court hearing was scheduled on November 26, 2013. Attorney JP Sarmiento represented our client and his sister-in-law at the hearing. Eventually, on the same day, the court found that our client is neglected and dependent and our client’s sister-in-law was appointed legal guardian.

After that, our office filed the I-360 application on December 2, 2013 to the USCIS. The application was supported by a court order declaring dependency by the juvenile court, court order deeming the juvenile eligible for long-term foster care due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment, determination from the juvenile court that it is in our client’s interest not to be returned to Guatemala, and his birth certificate.

Our client’s I-360 interview is scheduled for January 10, 2014 at the Cleveland USCIS Field Office. If the USCIS grants his I-360 application, our office can terminate his proceedings with the Immigration Court. Once it is terminated, our client can file his adjustment of status application.

{ 0 comments }