CASE: VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) Cancellation of Removal

CLIENT: Colombian

LOCATION: New York Immigration Court in New York City, NY

Our client came to the United States in 1994 with a valid J-1 visa from Colombia. After her J-1 status expired, she remained in the United States. She married her U.S. citizen husband in October 2006. However, her marriage to her ex-husband turned to be very abusive and her marriage ended in divorce in 2009.

She suffered a lot throughout her marriage due to the physical violence and mental abuse she experienced from her ex-husband. She has longstanding medical issues as well. She has low thyroid function due to an auto-immune disorder which requires regular supplementation of the thyroid hormone. Our client also has Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, a very serious auto-immune disorder which in her case has manifested as a severe and sometimes disabling inflammatory arthritis. She is also diagnosed with thyroid cancer which appeared in 2006.  She already had three surgeries for her cancer and she is taking medication and mild chemo-therapy. She was having a hard time without any valid immigration status.

She contacted our office in July 2011 when she was served a Notice to Appear (NTA) for her immigration law violation. After careful review of her case, we determined that she is eligible for VAWA cancellation relief at the immigration court.

INA Section 240A(b)(2) provides that the applicant for VAWA cancellation of removal must:

• Have been battered or suffered extreme cruelty by a spouse who is or was a USC or LPR;
• Have been present physically in the United States for three years before applying;
• Be a person of good moral character during the period of physical presence;
• Not have been convicted of an aggravated felony;
• Not be inadmissible or deportable due to certain criminal, security, or marriage fraud violations; and
• Demonstrate that removal would result in extreme hardship to the applicant.

The case originated in Buffalo, NY, but venue was later changed to New York City. Our client appeared at the New York Immigration Court on January 13, 2012 for her initial master calendar hearing. Our attorney represented her at the hearing, did pleadings and sought for VAWA cancellation relief. After the Master Calendar Hearing, the Court scheduled an individual hearing date on April 30, 2013.

Our firm worked with our client and her friends and family members for the application and supplemental documents. We gathered a lot of her documents regarding her former spouse’s abuse, medical documents and extensively worked on our client’s affidavit. We also contacted our client’s friends for supporting documents and letters of support.

In preparing our client for the Individual Hearing, Attorney Yu talked to our client through conference calls several hours each time. 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 VAWA Cancellation.

At the Individual Hearing on April 30, 2013, Attorney Yu represented our client at the New York Immigration Court in New York City, NY. Testimony then followed and we questioned our client extensively on the abuse and hardship factors of her case. Attorney Yu questioned her regarding her length of residence in the U.S., her medical condition, physical and mental suffering that she experienced from her previous marriage, employment history, educational history, family issues and hardships to her and her family members if she was to be deported to Colombia. Our client was prepared, was very consistent, and was honest in her answers.  After direct examination, the DHS counsel only asked a few more questions.

After the hearing, the Immigration Judge determined that he could not issue a decision due to the unavailability of the quota.  Under INA Section 240A(e)(1), Congress limited the number of cancellation applicants who may adjust status to lawful permanent residence each year to only 4,000. Thus, she had to wait until October 2013 when the annual quota resets.

In the end, the New York Immigration Court granted our client’s VAWA cancellation of removal relief on December 2, 2013. It was a tough call and our firm was very happy for our client. She has been here since 1994 and suffered a lot in the past. Nevertheless, she finally is a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Cancellation of Removal for Permanent Residents

CLIENT: Guatemalan (Green card holder)

LOCATION: El Paso Immigration Court in Texas

Our client came to the United States in 1987 when she was a child. Through INA Section 245i, she got her green card in 2001.  She has been in the US ever since. She has seven U.S. Citizen children and most of her immediate family members are either U.S. Citizen or green card holders.

Unfortunately she was convicted of aiding and abetting someone’s illegal entry in early 2013. Because of this conviction, she was inadmissible and was placed in removal proceedings.  In late March of this year, our client contacted our office for legal representation. We were retained on April 1, 2013. The case at the onset was tough because her conviction may constitute an aggravated felony; however, after the careful review, her conviction did not rise to the level of aggravated felony, and so it was not alleged on her Notice to Appear. This was critical and made her eligible to apply for Cancellation of Removal.

Once retained, we represented our client before the El Paso Immigration Court at her initial master calendar hearing on July 8, 2013. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu represented her at the hearing and sought cancellation of removal relief for permanent residents.

Under INA Section 240A(a), for a permanent resident to be eligible for Cancellation of Removal, the alien must prove that s/he:

• Has been an LPR (green card holder) for at least five years;

• Has resided in the United States continuously for seven years after having been admitted in any status;

• Has not been convicted of an aggravated felony; and

• Merits a favorable exercise of discretion.

The criteria for favorable exercise of discretion was explained in Matter of C-V-T-, 22 I&N Dec. 7 (BIA 1998). The BIA in C-V-T stated that the factors that the immigration judge must consider when deciding whether to grant cancellation of removal to a lawful permanent resident are as follows:

The positive factors are:

• Family ties in the United States, particularly ties to lawful permanent residents or U.S. citizens;
• Residence of long duration in the U.S. (particularly when the inception of residence occurred at a young age);
• Evidence of hardship to the Respondent and his family if deportation occurs;
• Service in the U.S. armed forces;
• A history of employment;
• Existence of property or business ties;
• Evidence of value and service to the community;
• Proof of genuine rehabilitation if a criminal record exists;
• Other evidence attesting to a Respondent’s good character.

Adverse factors include:

• Nature and underlying circumstances of the grounds of removal;
• The presence of additional significant violations of the Immigration Laws;
• The nature, recency, and seriousness of criminal records; and
• The presence of other evidence has been indicative of a respondent’s bad character or undesirability as a permanent resident of the U.S.

Generally, the immigration judge must weigh the positive factors against the negative factors in exercising her discretion.

After the Master Calendar Hearing, the Court scheduled the individual hearing date on December 11, 2013.

Our firm worked with our client and her friends and family members for the application and its supplemental documents. We contacted her family members in other states for supporting documents and letters of support.

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 Cancellation of Removal eligibility.

In preparing our client for the Individual Hearing, Attorney Yu talked to our client over conference calls several hours each time. Obviously the central issue in this case would be whether or not our client’s positive factors outweigh the negative factors, with the alien smuggling conviction looming as a very big negative factor.

At the Individual Hearing on December 11, 2013, Attorney Yu represented our client at the El Paso Immigration Court in Texas. Testimony then followed and we questioned our client extensively on the positive factors of her case. Attorney Yu questioned her regarding her length of residence in the U.S., employment history, educational history, family issues and hardships to her and her family members (especially her seven U.S. citizen children) if she was to be deported to Guatemala. Our client was prepared, was very consistent, and was honest in her answers.  After direct examination, the DHS counsel only asked three more questions and agreed to not oppose the grant of her relief.

In the end, the El Paso Immigration Court granted our client’s cancellation of removal relief. It was a tough call and our firm was very happy for our client. She has been here since 1987 but had one bump along the way.  She has reformed, will finish her studies, and will continue supporting her seven kids. It was obviously an emotional moment as her parents, sisters, and friends were in Court.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings

CLIENT: Cameroonian

LOCATION: Client: Houston, TX / EOIR: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States from Cameroon in 2000.  He entered legally on an F-1 visa.

In 2002, he filed for asylum with the USCIS.  He was interviewed at the CIS office, but his asylum application was referred to the Immigration Court in New Orleans.  After his first master calendar hearing, he requested for a change of venue to Hartford, CT.

In 2004, our client married his U.S. citizen wife and she filed an I-130 on behalf of our client. Our client filed the I-485 adjustment of status application simultaneously with the I-130 petition even though he was in removal proceedings. He had no legal representation at that time.

However, with the help of the Immigration Judge and DHS counsel, he served copies of the I-130 and I-485 application and informed the court that he filed the adjustment of status application. When he served the copies of his I-130/I-485 application, the DHS attorney told our client that she will try to re-route the I-485 application he filed to the CIS to the court. Our client assumed that given that he had been in clear communication with the Court and the DHS attorney, that everything will be fine with his case and that both files will be merged.

Later in August 2004, our client moved to Cleveland, Ohio due to his new employment and his case venue was changed from Hartford, CT to Cleveland, OH as well.  He attended his master calendar hearings in Cleveland, and in December 2005, our client and his wife attended their green card interview at the USCIS Cleveland Field office.  After the interview, our client eventually got his conditional green card in the mail and he was under the assumption that if he was given a green card, then he must have done everything right and that the removal case had been dropped.

While he resided in the Cleveland area, he moved to a different addresses and he had always promptly notified both Immigration Court and the USCIS by filing change of address forms.  In April 2006, he went to his master calendar hearing which he got in his new address.  However, our client was told to go home and that he will get a letter in the mail with a re-scheduled master hearing date.  He never received anything else from Court since then.

As mentioned above, our client got his green card and he filed an I-751 application two years later to remove conditions on the green card. He also got this. He had foreign trips and on one of his entries, the issue of his final order came up but he eventually was let go and his green card was even given back to him.

Later, he filed an N-400 naturalization application and during his N-400 interview the final order of removal in absentia which was issued in November 2006 was brought up again. He was stunned and contacted a local immigration attorney in Houston, Texas where he currently resides. However, his attorney never filed the Motion to the court.

Our client contacted our office in late April 2013 and sought legal assistance. We advised him that we can file a Motion to Reopen in absentia order of removal.

To rescind the final order, he has to get his case reopened. This is done through a Motion to Reopen filed with the Immigration Judge who gave the final order.  Based on this Motion to Reopen, the Immigration Judge can rescind the in absentia order of removal if you are able to show that you did not receive proper notice of the hearing. If the Notice to Appear or hearing notice was sent to the wrong address for example, and not the last address you provided to the immigration service, then there’s a good basis for a Motion to Reopen.

On May 9, 2013, our office filed a Motion to Reopen with the Cleveland Immigration Court. Documentation of his address at the date of the final order, a detailed affidavit regarding his addresses and his circumstances around the final order date, copies of his green card and immigration related documentation, documentation of the last address he provided to the immigration service and to the Immigration Court prior to the final order date, and other supporting documents were submitted (14 exhibits).

On June 19, 2013, the Cleveland Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case.  Once his case was reopened, his master calendar hearing was scheduled on September 24, 2013 at the Cleveland Immigration Court. Prior to the master calendar hearing, our office filed a Motion to Terminate with the Cleveland Immigration Court.

On September 24, 2013, our client appeared at the Cleveland Immigration Court for his master calendar hearing. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu of our firm represented him at his Master Calendar hearing. During the Master Calendar hearing, our attorney sought for termination of proceedings, but the Immigration Judge continued his case to allow the DHS to respond to our Motion to Terminate.

Eventually, the DHS did not oppose our Motion to Terminate. As a result of that, on December 2, 2013, the Immigration Judge issued her order to terminate our client’s removal proceedings.

{ 0 comments }

CASE:  Termination of Removal Proceedings / Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Filipino
LOCATION: Pennsylvania / Immigration Court: Philadelphia Immigration Court

Our client came to the United States on a valid K-1 fiancé visa in 2004. He married his U.S. citizen fiance within two months of his entry, and then he eventually filed an I-485 adjustment of status application.

In May 2005, our client received his conditional permanent resident card. However, his I-751 application was denied in December 2007 due to his troubled marriage and he got divorced with his U.S. Citizen wife in April 2008.

Unbeknownst to our client, a Notice to Appear was issued against him and it was sent to his previous address in June 2008.  Thus, our client did not know of the issuance of his NTA and his initial Master Calendar hearing. Eventually, he missed the hearing and the Immigration Court issued an order of removal against our client in June 2008.  Later, our client got married again with his ex-wife. After the re-marriage, his U.S. citizen wife filed an I-130 petition for our client and this was approved in June 2009.

Due to his confusion on what to do after the approved I-130 (the approval mentioned something about consular processing) our client left the United States and went to the Philippines to apply for an immigrant visa. During the interview, our client learned of his final order of removal in absentia and he was asked to file a waiver. Unfortunately, his waiver application was denied because there was no waiver for inadmissibility under 212(a)(6)(B), which provided, based on the letter, that “any alien who without reasonable cause fails to attend or remain in attendance at a proceeding to determine the alien’s inadmissibility or deportability and who seeks admission to the United States within 5 years of such alien’s subsequent departure of removal is inadmissible.”

Thus, our client needed to reopen his case and get a termination order from the court to file his waiver.

To rescind the final order, he has to get his case reopened. This is done through a Motion to Reopen filed with the Immigration Judge who gave the final order. Based on this Motion to Reopen, the Immigration Judge can rescind the in absentia order of removal if you are able to show that you did not receive notice of the hearing.

On August 14, 2013, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Philadelphia Immigration Court. Documentation of his address at the date of the final order, a detailed affidavit regarding his addresses and the circumstances around the final order date, documentation of the last address he provided to the immigration service prior to the final order date, and other supporting documents were submitted (20 exhibits). On September 24, 2013, the Philadelphia Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case.

After his case was reopened, our office filed a Motion to Terminate Proceedings to the Philadelphia Immigration Court. As a result, on October 21, 2013, the Immigration Judge in the Philadelphia Immigration Court granted our Motion to Terminate for our client. Our client’s removal proceeding is now terminated, and he can file a waiver application for his immigrant visa.

{ 0 comments }

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

CLIENT: Kenyan

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio (EOIR) / Columbus, Ohio (USCIS)

Our client is a Kenyan citizen who came to the U.S. on an F-1 Student Visa in December 2007 to study at a college in Ohio. In January 2010, she married her U.S. citizen husband, and her husband filed an I-130 petition for her. However, the I-130 petition was denied and our client was placed in removal proceedings due to her failure to maintain F-1 status. After her I-130 was denied, her husband filed a second I-130 petition for her in March 2012.

After she was placed in removal proceedings, she contacted our office and sought legal assistance. She retained our office on June 7, 2012.

Our office prepared and submitted a copy of the I-130 Petition with more bona fide marriage evidence of her marriage to the Cleveland Immigration Court. We wanted to show the Court that despite this second filing, that an approval was feasible, and so we wanted to demonstrate even prior to the Master Hearing that the marriage was bona fide. This was important so that we can get a continuance. The filing also included a bona fide marriage exception letter which was omitted when our client filed the I-130 petition previously.

So while the second I-130 petition was pending, our client appeared at the Cleveland Immigration Court on August 7, 2013 for her initial master calendar hearing.  Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office represented her at the hearing, did pleadings and sought adjustment of status relief upon approval of the I-130 petition. He asked for a continuance and on the basis of the bona fide evidence submitted to the court, argued that this was, despite it being a second I-130, good cause. The continuance was granted.

Our client’s I-130 interview was scheduled on October 9, 2012 at the Columbus USCIS Field Office.  Prior to the interview, our office thoroughly prepared our client and her husband for the interview. Attorney Yu also accompanied them at their interview. The interview lasted more than two hours, our clients were separated, but the I-130 petition was eventually approved on November 14, 2012.

After the I-130 was approved, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to Terminate proceedings with an attached I-485 application and its 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 on January 9, 2013.

Once her case was terminated with the Immigration Court, our office prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on June 28, 2013, together with other necessary forms and supporting documents. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients through conference calls.

On September 3, 2013, our client was interviewed at the Columbus, OH USCIS office. The interview went, and on October 11, 2013, our client’s green card application was finally approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Asylum in Immigration Court

CLIENT: Cameroonian

LOCATION: Cleveland Immigration Court

Our Cameroonian client came to the United States as an arriving alien in May 2012. She was detained at Eloy Processing Center for three months, and later paroled into the United States. A Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceedings. After she got the Notice to Appear and first Master Calendar hearing notice, she contacted and retained our firm in April 2013.

She was persecuted and harmed in Cameroon based on her political opinion and political activism, so within one year of her entry, she filed an asylum application (Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and relief under the CAT)

Our client was scared to go back home to Cameroon, fearing that she will be persecuted based on her political opinion and her past participation in certain organizational activities. While she was in Cameroon, our client joined marches against the government’s actions and participated in political activities for Southern Cameroonians. As a result, she was arrested and detained multiple times by the Cameroonian police and has experienced harm and mistreatments in numerous occasions.

We helped her file her asylum application and represented her in immigration court hearings. We also asked her to provide supporting documents corroborating her claim, some of which were a letter from her parents, colleagues and friends in Cameroon, Cameroonian medical documents of our client’s injury, and her membership certification with the organization. Our firm also did some research on articles related to her claim, and the type of persecution she will experience in Cameroon if sent back.

Our client’s individual hearing was scheduled on September 30, 2013 at the Cleveland Immigration Court. Attorney Sung Hee Yu from our firm prepared her extensively twice, both of which lasted several hours. He also represented our client at her Individual Hearing.

During the hearing, our client testified credibly as to her past persecution in Cameroon and likelihood of future persecution. After the hearing, the Immigration Judge granted asylum relief for our client. She is now an asylee who will get her work permit in two weeks and will be eligible to apply for permanent residency in one year.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Adjustment of Status through EOIR / Motion to Remand / I-130 Approval
CLIENT: Nepalese
LOCATION: Baltimore, MD

Our client came to the United States with a valid B-2 visa from Nepal in January 1998. He remained in the United States for a time longer than permitted.

In November 2009, he was placed in deportation proceedings due to his overstay and a Notice to Appear was issued. His asylum application was denied by the Immigration Judge, but an appeal was timely filed.

While the BIA appeal was pending, our client’s daughter became a naturalized U.S. Citizen in January 2012.

Our office immediately filed an I-130 petition for our client on February 6, 2012. After we received the I-130 receipt notice, 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 his daughter has not become a naturalized U.S. citizen yet.

Our office filed a Motion to Remand for Adjustment of Status based on a pending I-130 to the BIA on February 24, 2012. 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. Eventually, on July 10, 2012, the BIA granted our motion, reopened our client’s case, and the record was remanded for further proceedings.

While we were waiting for adjudication of the I-130 petition, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) regarding the paternal relationship of our client. Apparently, the birth certificate submitted from Nepal was not enough. So we scheduled a DNA test for our client and this resulted to a 99.99% likelihood of paternity. On September 14, 2012, the USCIS approved the I-130 petition for our client.

Upon approval of the I-130 petition, our client’s removal proceeding was commenced again in the Baltimore Immigration Court. On March 20, 2013, our client was appeared at his Master Calendar hearing at the Baltimore Immigration Court. He was represented by Mr. Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office and our attorney explained the procedural history of our client’s case to the immigration judge and sought for adjustment of status relief. The individual hearing was scheduled for September 19, 2013.

Prior to the individual hearing, our office prepared our client for his upcoming hearing over conference call. On September 19, 2013, our client and Mr. Yu appeared at the Baltimore Immigration Court for our client’s individual hearing. Eventually, the Immigration Judge granted our client’s adjustment of status relief. Now, he is a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

Case: TPS Extension
Client: El Salvadoran
Location: Cleveland, OH

The Secretary of Homeland Security may designate a foreign country for Temporary Protected Status due to conditions in the country that temporarily prevent the country’s nationals from returning safely, or in certain circumstances, where the country is unable to handle the return of its nationals adequately. USCIS may grant TPS to eligible nationals of certain countries (or parts of countries), who are already in the United States. Eligible individuals without nationality who last resided in the designated country may also be granted TPS. The Secretary may designate a country for TPS due to the following temporary conditions in the country: 1) Ongoing armed conflict (such as civil war); 2) An environmental disaster (such as earthquake or hurricane), or 3) an epidemic or other extraordinary and temporary condition. During a designated period, individuals who are TPS beneficiaries or who are found preliminarily eligible for TPS upon initial review of their cases (prima facie eligible):

• Are not removable from the United States
• Can obtain an employment authorization document (EAD)
• May be granted for travel authorization

Once granted TPS, an individual also cannot be detained by DHS on the basis of his or her immigration status in the United States.
Our client first entered the United States in 2000 and has resided in the U.S. ever since. He had obtained TPS and work permits for a long time. He contacted our office in June 2013 for his TPS extension and work permit. Our client retained us on July 1, 2013. On July 2, 2013, our office filed his TPS Application and Work Permit with a brief regarding his eligibility. We explained that our client has continued residence in the United States and continued physical presence since 2000. On August 30, 2013, the USCIS approved his TPS and issued a valid work permit for our client.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Administrative Closure in Removal Proceedings

CLIENT: Mexican

LOCATION: Atlanta, GA

Our client came to the United States in April 1994 from Mexico. When he entered the U.S, he was not inspected and admitted. He has stayed in the United States ever since and never left.  He now lives in Atlanta, GA with two U.S. citizen children. He is a good worker and a good father for his kids.

In 2010, he was picked up and detained by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Moreover, he did not even know he had a final order of removal, so he contacted our office.  With our office’s assistance, he filed a Motion to Reopen in Absentia and this Motion was granted by the Atlanta Immigration Court in 2010.  After that he was placed in removal proceeding again.

On August 25, 2011, Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office represented our client at his master calendar hearing at the Atlanta Immigration Court. We did pleadings and asked for cancellation of removal for non-LPR relief. The individual hearing was scheduled for September 11, 2013.

Our client did not have enough hardships and we understood we were with one of the toughest judges in the country, so with consent from our client, our office sought prosecutorial discretion with the DHS to administratively close our client’s case. We note that our client at this point already obtained his work permit.

Our request was based on John Morton’s Memorandum issued on June 17, 2011. Former USCIS Director John Morton issued a memorandum clarifying and expanding prior Immigration and Customs Enforcement directives regarding prosecutorial discretion.

This memorandum notes that prosecutorial discretion should be exercised in a wide range of situations including “granting deferred action, granting parole, or staying a final order of removal.” ICE now considers nineteen non-exclusive factors, including the following factors relevant to this case:

• The agency’s civil immigration enforcement priorities;
• The person’s length of presence in the United States, with particular consideration given to presence while in lawful status;
• The person’s criminal history, including arrests, prior convictions, or outstanding arrest warrants;
• The person’s immigration history, including any prior removal, outstanding order    of removal, prior denial of status, or evidence of fraud;
• Whether the person poses a national security or public safety concern;
• The person’s ties and contributions to the community, including family relationships;
• The person’s ties to the home country and conditions in the country;
• whether the person has a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, child, or parent;

No one factor is determinative and decisions to exercise prosecutorial discretion should be based on the totality of the circumstances.

On July 25, 2013, our office filed a written request to administratively close proceedings for our client. In the brief, we argued that most factors weigh heavily in favor of an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Our client has been in the U.S. for 19 years, and has two Citizen children. Also, he has never been convicted of any crime, and has always paid taxes. He fully supports his kinds, and sends them to school. We also argued that it would be tough for his family if he was to be deported, considering he is the sole supporter of his two U.S. citizen children throughout their lives.  Our office included numerous letters of support from his co-workers and friends, tax records, criminal record search, and other supporting documents.

On September 11, 2013, at his Individual Hearing, the DHS requested administrative closure for our client’s case based on our request. The court granted the request, and our client’s case is now administratively closed. He can now continue staying in the United States, work legally due to his work permit, and continue renewing it while his case is administratively closed.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition
CLIENT: Kenyan
LOCATION: Chicago, IL (EOIR) / Durham, NC (USCIS)

Our client is from Kenya who came to the U.S. on an F-1 Student Visa in August 2007. While in the United States, she failed to maintain her F-1 status due to family’s issues in Kenya. Because of her overstay, she was placed in removal proceedings in Chicago, IL.

Our client married her Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) husband in September 2010 in Wisconsin. Soon after, they moved to the Raleigh, NC area.

Her husband filed an I-130 petition for her after they got married. Eventually, our client’s I-130 petition was approved in February 2012 after their I-130 interview at the USCIS Durham Field Office.  Glen Yu from our office accompanied them at the interview.

Her individual hearing was scheduled on August 13, 2013 at the Chicago Immigration Court as well.

In June 2013, our office filed a written request to administratively close our client’s removal proceedings to the DHS Chicago Office.  In a written brief, our office fully explained that our client’s case is not DHS’s priority for deportation and explained that our client has an I-130 approval, no criminal records, has paid taxes, and has family ties in the United States. Our office attached an I-485 application along with the brief, and its supporting documents as well.

After review, the DHS counsel in Chicago contacted our office and was willing to terminate our client’s removal proceedings. The DHS counsel filed a Joint Motion to Terminate on August 2, 2013 to the Chicago Immigration Court. Eventually, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice on August 12, 2013, a day before the Individual Hearing Now, she can file her I-485 adjustment of status application to USCIS to obtain her green card when her husband naturalizes early next year.

{ 0 comments }