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: 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: 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 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 }

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

CLIENT: Russian

LOCATION OF COURT: New York, NY

LOCATION OF CLIENT: Texas

Our client is from Russia who came to the U.S. on a J-1 Exchange Visitor Visa in June 2005. She then changed her status to F-1 in November 2005, but she failed to maintain her F-1 status after that.  She was thereafter placed in removal proceedings in New York, NY. She applied for asylum.

Our client married her U.S. citizen husband in November 2011 in Brooklyn, NY. Her husband filed an I-130 petition on her behalf after they got married. Eventually, our client’s I-130 petition was approved in April 2013. She applied for adjustment of status by herself with the CIS, but this was denied due to lack of jurisdiction.

She contacted our office around May 2013 to seek legal assistance. She retained our office in May 28, 2013.

After our office was retained, we prepared and filed a request to join in a Motion to Terminate proceedings with an attached I-485 application and its supporting documents to the New York ICE-DHS office. In less than a month, the DHS counsel in New York agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Eventually, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice on July 2, 2013. Now, she can file her I-485 adjustment of status application with the CIS.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-485 approval after the Termination of Proceedings

CLIENT: Moldovan

LOCATION: Baltimore, MD (EOIR) / Fairfax, VA (USCIS)

Our client came to the United States from Moldova in 2008 with her ex-husband.  While they were residing at the Baltimore area, her ex-husband filed an asylum application to the USCIS.  Our client was a derivative applicant for this asylum application.  Later this case was referred to the Baltimore Immigration Court and removal proceedings were initiated against our client and her ex-husband.  While this asylum application was pending at the Immigration Court, our client and her ex-husband got a divorce due to marital difficulties.  Her previous immigration lawyer filed a Motion to Deconsolidate, but our client never got a response from her previous attorney nor the Court regarding the possible deconsolidation.

Her individual hearing was scheduled in May 2011, but she was not informed of this date.  She later learned that she had a final order of removal because of her absence from her ex-husband.  Once she learned about that, she contacted our office for legal assistance. We advised her that we can file a Motion to Reopen in absentia order of removal based on exceptional circumstances. She retained our office on August 15, 2011.

To rescind the final order, she has to get her 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 August 18, 2011, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Baltimore Immigration Court. Documentation of her address at the date of the final order, a detailed affidavit regarding her addresses and her circumstances around the final order date, documentation of her medical appointment on the day of hearing, the last address she provided to the immigration service and to the Immigration Court prior to the final order date, and other supporting documents were submitted (12 exhibits). Eventually, on September 23, 2011, the Baltimore Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case.

Our client’s divorce was finalized on August 11, 2011.  After her case was reopened, she married her current U.S. citizen husband in July 2012.  Her U.S. citizen husband filed an I-130 petition on behalf of our client on August 16, 2012 with our legal assistance and they appeared at the I-130 interview on December 18, 2012 at the Fairfax, VA USCIS Field Office.  Prior to the interview, our office thoroughly prepared our client and her husband for the interview.  Although the interview was intensive, on January 9, 2013, the I-130 petition was approved.

After the I-130 was approved, our office filed a Motion to Terminate proceedings with an attached I-485 application and its supporting documents on January 30, 2013.  On February 13, 2013, our client appeared at the Baltimore Immigration Court for her initial master calendar hearing after the reopening of her case.  Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office represented our client at the hearing and sought termination before the Immigration Judge.  The Immigration Judge granted our Motion to Terminate and eventually terminated our client’s case without prejudice on the same day.

Once her case was terminated with the Immigration Court, our office prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on March 7, 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 May 22, 2013, our client was interviewed at the Fairfax, Virginia USCIS office. Our client was fully prepared and the interview went well.  On the same day, her green card application was approved.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

For other marriage-based green card success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

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

CLIENT: Filipina

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client is from the Philippines who came to the U.S. on a B-2 Visitor’s Visa in March 2009. She remained in the United States after her authorized stay expired. Because of her overstay, she was placed in removal proceedings in Cleveland, Ohio.

Our client married her U.S. citizen husband in April 2011 in Ohio. Her husband filed an I-130 petition on her behalf after they got married. Eventually, our client’s I-130 petition was approved in June 2012. Unfortunately, after being in Court prior to our retention about 4 to 5 times, she could not get her case terminated.

She contacted our office around September 2012 to seek legal assistance. She retained our office in October 1, 2012.

After our office was retained, we prepared and filed a request to join in a Motion to Terminate proceedings with an attached I-485 application and its supporting documents to the Cleveland Immigration Court. The DHS counsel in Cleveland agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Eventually, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice on February 5, 2013.

Once her case was terminated with the Immigration Court, our office prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on February 25, 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 at our office.

On May 10, 2013, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland CIS office. Our attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu accompanied them as well. Our client was fully prepared and the interview went well.  On May 17, 2013, her green card application was approved.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

For other marriage-based green card success stories, please click here.

For other termination success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

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

CLIENT: Liberian

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our Liberian client came to the U.S. on a B-2 Visitor’s Visa in October 1996. He remained in the United States after his authorized stay expired. He was a minor at that time.

Because of his overstay, he was placed in removal proceedings in Cleveland, Ohio.

His hearing was coming up when he retained us in January 10, 2011. He just got married to his spouse a few days earlier. We prepared and filed the I-130 petition on his behalf on January 14, 2011.

Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office represented our client at his hearings and sought adjustment of status relief. The I-130 interview was scheduled on August 12, 2011 and our attorney prepared them for the interview and accompanied them as well. The I-130 petition was eventually approved by the USCIS on December 28, 2011.

After the I-130 petition was approved, we 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. Eventually, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to Terminate without prejudice on July 18, 2012.

After removal proceedings were terminated, our office prepared and filed an I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on October 13, 2012, 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 over the phone.

On April 23, 2013, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland CIS office. Our attorney accompanied them as well. Our client was fully prepared and the interview went well.  On May 2, 2013, his green card application was approved.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

For other marriage based green card success stories, please click here.

For other termination success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Termination of Proceedings based on I-360 Approval

CLIENT: Kenyan

LOCATION: Ohio

Our Kenyan client came to the U.S. on a J-1 Visa in 2004. She overstayed and was placed in removal proceedings two years ago, and she retained our office for legal representation.

When she came in 2004, her visa made her subject to the 2-year foreign residency requirement. As our previous success story explained, this client received an I-612 J-1 waiver approval from the USCIS in January 2012 with our assistance.

Our office then filed her I-360 VAWA petition as a spouse of an abusive U.S. Citizen. Our client experienced domestic violence and spousal abuse while she was married to her ex-husband. Thus, we filed and prepared her I-360 petition, which included 26 exhibits and a detailed brief to the USCIS Vermont Service Center on May 5, 2011. This petition was also reviewed by the Immigration Judge during our client’s Master Calendar hearing and the IJ opined that our client’s I-360 petition was prima facie approvable.

Despite our client’s thoroughly prepared I-360 application, in August 2012, the USCIS Vermont Service Center issued a Request for Evidence (RFE). Specifically, the RFE letter requested our client to submit more medical documents to prove her ex-husband subjected her to extreme cruelty. Moreover, the RFE letter asked our client to submit more notarized affidavits of witnesses. Our client and our office gathered the requested documents, and filed a response to RFE on November 7, 2012 with 13 exhibits.

Finally, on February 22, 2013, the USCIS Vermont Service Center approved our client’s I-360 petition.

With the approved I-360 and I-612 J-1 waiver, our office filed a Request to Join in a Motion to Terminate proceedings to the USICE-DHS Cleveland Office with an attached I-485 application and its supporting documents on April 2, 2013.

On April 6, 2013, the assistant chief counsel of the DHS agreed with us and signed on a joint motion to terminate. On April 9, 2013, our client appeared at the Cleveland Immigration Court for her master calendar hearing.  The Immigration Judge granted the Joint Motion to Terminate and eventually terminated our client’s case without prejudice on the same day.  Now, she can file her I-485 adjustment of status application to USCIS to obtain her green card.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

For other termination success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Motion to Reopen / Termination of Removal Proceedings

CLIENT: Chinese

LOCATION: New York, NY

Our client came to the United States from China with valid B-2 visitor’s visa in 1996. Within one year of his entry, he filed an I-589 Application for Asylum.

In January 1998, our client had his asylum interview in Rosedale, New York. After the interview, his asylum application was referred to the New York Immigration Court and a Notice to Appear was issued for our client.

Respondent attended his first hearing, but missed his second hearing in December 1998. Respondent said he did not know of his second hearing, and that his attorney never informed him of such. Thus, he missed it.

Our client has remained in the U.S. ever since to take care and raise his U.S. Citizen daughter. He was with his wife who is now a lawful permanent resident.  Over the past decade, his wife had suffered from several medical issues.

Our client then became the beneficiary of an approved I-130 petition filed by his U.S. Citizen daughter. However, he could not adjust his status based on this I-130 petition due to his final order of removal.

Prior to retaining our office, our client tried to reopen his case with the Immigration Court through two other immigration lawyers in New York; however, both were not successful.

We reviewed his case and informed him that reopening will be tough because previous lawyers have tried twice and were denied. We told him that if we were to do it, we plan to emphasize the medical hardships of his wife and also technically address the ineffective assistance of counsel issue, by having him do all necessary steps, from the bar complaint, to proper notification, and others. He agreed.

On December 8, 2011, our client retained our office to do another Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen.

Once retained, our office extensively prepared and gathered documents for our client’s request to join in a Motion to Reopen with the DHS.  As set for forth in Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum, in determining whether to join in a Motion to Reopen, the INS (now the DHS) should consider the following factors: (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.

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. Section 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.”

Thus, we argued that if our client’s case is reopened, he will be prima facie eligible to adjust his status.  In our brief, we argued that our client had substantial equities considering the medical records of his wife and legal status of both his wife and daughter.

Our client had no criminal records and his immigration violation was for overstaying his legal entry.  Despite his overstay, our client still filed for asylum within one year of his entry to the United States. We pointed out that our client was not informed of his immigration hearing due to the ineffective assistance of his previous immigration counsel. We also pointed out that his daughter is a world class pianist who has perfumed in several prestigious events.

On July 11, 2012, our office filed the Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen to the Office of Chief Counsel in New York, NY.  In an 11-page brief, we pointed out several factors from his detailed affidavit regarding his immigration history and equities. Several affidavits from his family members were also included.

We also included over 200 pages of supporting documents to show his wife’s medical issues, his prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status if his case was reopened, and Lozada compliance documents.

On December 4, 2012, after two tries by our client with two other lawyers, the New York DHS-ICE office agreed to join in the motion to reopen for the sole purpose of having the Court terminate the case without prejudice to allow our client to seek adjustment of status.

Once we got consent from the DHS, our office prepared and filed a Motion to Reopen and Motion to Terminate to the Board of Immigration Appeals on December 21, 2012.  Eventually, the Board of Immigration of Appeals granted our Motions on March 5, 2012.  Now, our client’s final order of removal is rescinded, and he can file an I-485 adjustment of status application based on the approved I-130 petition to the USCIS directly.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

For other Motion to Terminate success story, please click here.

For other Deportation success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

{ 2 comments }