CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition
CLIENT: Ghanaian
LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio (EOIR) / Columbus, Ohio (USCIS)

Our client is a Ghanaian citizen who came to the U.S. on an F-1 Student Visa in August 2003 to study at a college in West Virginia.  He married his ex-wife, a U.S. Citizen, in 2007, but their marriage ended in 2011.  At the latter stage of his previous marriage, his ex-wife, a U.S. Citizen, filed an I-130 for him, but later withdrew the petition as their marriage did not work out well.  The I-130 petition was denied and after the denial, a Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceeding.

Our client got divorced to his first wife and then married his second U.S. Citizen wife in August 2011. He retained our office on August 29, 2011. Our office prepared and filed an I-130 Petition with bona fide marriage evidence of his two marriages on September 2, 2011. The petition also included a bona fide marriage exception letter. While the I-130 petition was pending, our client appeared at the Cleveland Immigration Court on October 19, 2011 for his initial master calendar hearing.  Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office represented him at the hearing, did pleadings and sought adjustment of status relief upon approval of the I-130 petition.

Our client’s I-130 interview was scheduled on March 26, 2012 at the Columbus USCIS Field Office.  Prior to the interview, our office thoroughly prepared our client and his wife for the interview. Attorney Yu also accompanied them at their interview. The interview lasted one hour, our clients were separated, but the I-130 petition was eventually approved on the same day.

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. He’s not in proceedings anymore. Now, he can file his I-485 adjustment of status application to the USCIS and eventually obtain his 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.

{ 2 comments }

Case: Termination of Proceedings / Adjustment of Status
Nationality: Chinese
Location: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in January 2002 with a valid B-1 visa. He has stayed in the United States ever since. He was placed in removal proceedings a few years later. While he was in the United States, his wife, who was a permanent resident, filed an I-130 petition for him. It was approved in June 2010. At the time of the I-130 filing, our client’s wife was a lawful permanent resident, so the priority date for our client was not current. She became a naturalized U.S. citizen on June 17, 2011.

Before our firm was retained, our client already had a scheduled asylum individual hearing in 2013. In August 2011, our client consulted with our office and sought legal assistance. We advised him that we would try to terminate his removal proceedings with the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) cooperation. Our office filed a request to join in a Motion to terminate proceedings with a copy of the I-485 application and supporting documents on November 8, 2011. The DHS counsel in Cleveland agreed to terminate our client’s removal proceedings. The Immigration Judge then granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice on December 7, 2011.

After the case got terminated, we filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status application with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) on December 22, 2011. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. There was no Request for Evidence. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients. On March 22, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland USCIS. We accompanied them at the interview as well. The interview went well, and our client’s green card application was approved the same day of the interview. After ten years in the United States and being through removal proceedings, our client is finally a permanent resident.

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 of proceedings 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
CLIENT: Nigerian
COURT LOCATION: Baltimore, Maryland / New York, NY
RESIDENCE: Brooklyn, NY

Our client came to the United States with valid B-2 visitors visa in 2002, and later married his previous U.S. Citizen wife. He filed his green card application based on his previous marriage, but they separated prior to the interview so he never got notice of his interview, denial and the eventual notice to appear in Court.

Years later, our client married his second U.S. Citizen spouse, and he again filed for his green card application himself. Prior to retaining our firm, he went to his I-130 and adjustment of status interview only to find out that he had a final order many years ago. He did not know about it. So his case was denied. He was told by the officer that he had to reopen his case. We met our client at our New York office and he retained us on August 2010 for the Motion to Reopen.

If an alien does not go to his or her scheduled hearing with the Immigration Court, regardless of the reason, you will on that day have an in absentia order of removal. Once this is triggered, you are susceptible to being detained and subsequently deported by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Through a 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 notice to appear. If the Notice to Appear was sent to the wrong address for example, then there’s a good basis for a Motion to Reopen.

On August 31, 2010, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Baltimore Immigration Court. Documentation of his address at the date of the final order, a detailed 4-page affidavit regarding his addresses and his 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. The Department of Homeland Security did not file an opposition or response to our Motion. On November 8, 2010, our office called the Court to follow up and we were informed that the Motion was granted.  Upon approval of the Motion to Reopen, we filed a Motion to Change of Venue as well.  The Baltimore Immigration Court granted our Motion, and later our client’s venue was changed to New York, NY.

Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our client at his Master Calendar hearing at the New York Immigration Court in March 2011, and he explained that an I-130 is pending and that a Stokes interview should be scheduled soon. On September 15, 2011,
Attorney JP Sarmiento accompanied our client and his U.S. Citizen wife for their I-130 Stokes interview. The interview went well, and the USCIS officer determined that our client’s marriage to his U.S. citizen wife was bona fide.  On the same day, the I-130 petition was approved.

With the approved I-130 petition, we filed a request to join in a motion to terminate with the DHS.  After review of our client’s application, the DHS agreed to join the motion. On October 22, 2011, the New York Immigration Court granted our Motion to Terminate, so our client’s removal proceedings were terminated.  Thereafter, our client filed an I-485 Adjustment of Status application to the USCIS on October 25, 2011.

Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. There was no Request for Evidence.  Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients. On February 13, 2012, our client was interviewed at the New York City, NY USCIS.  We accompanied them at the interview as well. The interview went well, and our client’s green card application was approved on February 28, 2012.

After being in the U.S. for over 10 years and having a final order of removal for about nine years, our client finally has his permanent resident 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 Motion to Reopen success stories, please click here.

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: Request to Join in a Motion to Terminate with DHS and Motion to Terminate with the Cleveland Immigration Court
Nationality: Chinese
Location: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in January 2002 with a valid B-1 visa.  He has stayed in the United States ever since. He was placed in removal proceedings a few years later. While he was in the United States, his wife, who obtained her green card through asylum, filed an I-130 petition for him. It was approved in June 2010.  At the time of the I-130 filing, our client’s wife was a Lawful Permanent Resident, so the priority date for our client was not current. She became a naturalized U.S. citizen on June 17, 2011.

Before our firm was retained, our client already had a scheduled asylum individual hearing in 2013.  In August 2011, our client consulted with our office and sought legal assistance. We advised him that we would try to terminate his removal proceedings with the DHS’ cooperation.  Our office filed a request to join in a Motion to terminate proceedings with a copy of the I-485 application and supporting documents on November 8, 2011.  The DHS counsel in Cleveland agreed to terminate our client’s removal proceedings.  The Immigration Judge then granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice on December 7, 2011.

Now that removal proceedings are terminated, he can file an I-485 adjustment of status (green card) application with the USCIS. His case will be at the USCIS Cleveland Office for final adjudication.

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 more 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 / Terminate with the Immigration Court
Nationality: Chinese
Location: Newark, NJ

Our client had a final order of exclusion from the Newark Immigration Court in 1992. He was considered an arriving alien, was inspected by the DHS officer, and was paroled into the United States.  Despite his final order of exclusion, our client remained in the United States and eventually married his U.S. Citizen spouse.  In 2008, this client ultimately obtained his permanent residency through adjustment of status with the USCIS as an arriving alien.

After he obtained his permanent residency, he retained our office to terminate his final order of exclusion.  Since he had a final order of exclusion from the Newark Immigration Court, our office filed a Sua Sponte Motion to Reopen and Terminate to the Newark Immigration Court on September 13, 2011.  In the Motion, we contended that our client’s case should be re-opened and terminated since our client already obtained his permanent residency.  Our client wanted his order of exclusion terminated to avoid potential issues or confusion with the immigration service, such as when he travels abroad and comes back through one of the port of entries.  We also noted that Respondent is not disputing the validity of his permanent resident card, but asked for removal proceedings to be terminated.

As a result, the Newark Immigration Court granted our Sua Sponte Motion to Reopen and Terminate on October 3, 2011. Our client now does not have a final order of exclusion on his records.

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 Reopen and Terminate success stories, please click here and 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 / Terminate with the BIA
Nationality: Chinese
Location: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in 2000 without any immigration document (such as a passport and / or visa) from China.  After he arrived at the port of entry, he was inspected by the DHS officer and was paroled into the United States.  He applied for asylum, but was later denied by the Immigration Judge in New York in 2002.  He appealed with the BIA and that too was denied. Thus, he had a final order of removal.

Despite his final order of removal, our client remained in the United States for the next nine years and eventually married his U.S. Citizen spouse.  As we stated in a previous success story, this client ultimately obtained his permanent residency through adjustment of status with the USCIS as an arriving alien.

After he obtained his permanent residency, he retained our office again to terminate his final order of removal.  Since he had a final order of removal, our office filed a Motion to Terminate Proceedings to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) on August 26, 2011.  Although the DHS opposed our motion, the BIA granted our Motion to Terminate on September 30, 2011. Our client now does not have a final order of removal on his records.

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 deportation related 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 Removal Proceedings for Adjustment of Status With CIS
CLIENT: Jordanian
LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client is a Jordanian citizen who came to the U.S. on a B-2 Visa in 2008. She resides in the greater Cleveland area with her U.S. citizen husband.  They were married in 2006 in Jordan, and prior to retaining our firm, her husband filed an I-130 petition for her while she was in Jordan. Unfortunately, his I-130 petition was denied by the USCIS due to his failure to prove a bona fide marital relationship. Since our client’s husband filed the I-130 by himself, he could not provide sufficient supporting documents when the USCIS issued the Notice of Intent to Deny.  Eventually, this I-130 petition was denied in July 2007, so our client could not come to the United States with a valid immigrant visa.

Thereafter, our client’s husband mistakenly filed Form I-129F to obtain a fiancée visa for our client. However, a K-1 fiancé visa could not be issued because they were already married at the time of the filing.  Thus, this K-1 visa was subsequently denied by the USCIS in 2008.

Our client then came to the the United States with a B-2 visitor visa in December, 2008, but she did not leave the country even after her authorized period of stay was expired. She started to reside with her husband in Ohio. In March 2010, the DHS issued her a Notice to Appear. She was placed in removal proceedings.

They visited our office in early April of 2010.  Once retained, our office promptly filed an I-130 Petition with bona fide marriage evidence. Their I-130 interview was scheduled in December, 2010, and our office thoroughly prepared and accompanied them for the interview. The interview lasted two hours but the I-130 petition was eventually approved.  Our office represented her also at her Master Calendar hearings in Cleveland Immigration Court.

Once the I-130 was approved, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to terminate proceedings with the I-485 application and supporting documents. The DHS counsel in Cleveland agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings.  Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice and her case was transferred to the USCIS Cleveland Office for final adjudication.

Her I-485 Adjustment of Status interview was scheduled on June 28, 2011, and we accompanied our client and her husband at the interview.  After the interview, the CIS officer recommended her I-485 for approval.  Five years after their marriage, after struggling through the immigration system, our client finally has her green card.

For more success stories, please click here.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings

CLIENT: Filipino

LOCATION: Chicago, IL / Los Angeles, CA

This case is an example of how new immigration regulations applied and helped in a situation where the immigrant beneficiary’s petitioner is deceased before she applied for adjustment of status.  Our client is from the Philippines and came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitor’s visa in 2001.  Since her last admission, she has overstayed in the United States.  Currently, she resides in Chicago, Illinois.

Prior to retaining our firm, her father filed an I-130 petition for her back in 1987. As some of you may know, the priority dates for Philippine nationals under the family-based immigration category are more retrogressed than other countries. The I-130 petition was approved by the INS in 1987.  However, she could not apply for her green card until her priority date became current.  Therefore, she had to wait for more than 15 years in order to even apply for her green card.

Unfortunately, her father (I-130 Petitioner) passed away before she was eligible to apply for her green card.  She was placed in removal proceedings after the DHS found out about her overstay in the United States. She was under the impression that nothing could be done since her father (the I-130) petitioner died.

We explained that we can terminate removal proceedings and we can help her adjustment of status application with a substitute sponsor. Our office was retained in November 2010, and we later filed her I-485 Adjustment of Status application with a substitute sponsor (her US Citizen sister) and a Request to Join in a Motion to Terminate with the Department of Homeland Security.

Before 2009, through the more stringent humanitarian reinstatement process, the INS (USCIS now) allowed the foreign national’s spouse, parent, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sibling, child who is at least 18 years of age, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, grandparent, grandchild, or legal guardian to become a substitute sponsor if a family-based visa petitioner dies following the approval of the I-130 petition but before the foreign national obtains permanent residence. Even if the I-130 had been approved, it would be deemed revoked once the petitioner dies. At that time, reinstatement of the revoked petition was not automatic despite a substitute sponsor being available. And the process was still a matter of discretion. The INS had to determine whether “humanitarian reinstatement” was appropriate based on the individual facts of the case.  Thus, the applicant must demonstrate exceptional hardship and request for humanitarian reinstatement if his or her petitioner is deceased before the petition gets reinstated.

Public Law 111-83 (2009) eased this burden for beneficiaries whose petitioners are deceased prior to their adjustment of status application.  The new regulation does not require “humanitarian reinstatement” anymore.  Therefore, as long as there is a qualified substitute sponsor for these beneficiaries, the beneficiaries are eligible for adjustment of status even if the original petitioners are deceased.

Our client’s US citizen sister was willing to become a substitute sponsor for our client. On January 5, 2011, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to Terminate proceedings with her I-485 application and supporting documents.  Our client’s master calendar hearing was scheduled on February 2, 2011 at the Los Angeles Immigration Court (Although she currently resides in Chicago, IL, her NTA was served in Los Angeles and she did not change her venue).

Prior to her hearing, the DHS counsel in Los Angeles agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. With this joint motion, Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office represented our client at the Los Angeles Immigration Court.  Attorney Yu explained the new regulation and how this law applied to our client’s situation before the Immigration Judge.  The Immigration Judge granted termination without prejudice and her case is now with the USCIS Chicago Office, awaiting adjudication.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: Removal Proceedings, Adjustment of Status

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Senegalese

LOCATION: Ohio

Our client entered the U.S. using his brother’s passport back in 2001. He presented this at the airport customs and was let in by the officer. The officer checked the passport and asked a few questions to our client, as is customary, and he was able to enter despite using his brother’s passport.

Several years later, our client married a U.S. Citizen. Knowing than an I-601 hardship waiver was needed for his green card application due to his fraudulent entry with his brother’s passport, he filed everything together with the 601 waiver. The I-130 petition was approved, which means that the government believed the marriage was in good faith. The green card application though was denied, as well as the I-601 waiver. The denial pointed out that there was not enough hardship to meet the standards for the 601 waiver.

An appeal was filed to the AAO for the 601 waiver and after almost a year, the 601 was approved. However, our client was issued a Notice to Appear and was scheduled for a removal hearing with the Cleveland Immigration Court.

Our office was retained to represent him for removal proceedings. Days before the hearing, the government changed the Notice to Appear and alleged him as an “alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled” under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i). With this charge, even with the approval of the I-601 hardship waiver, our client would not be eligible for his green card. The government’s position was that our client’s entry with his brother’s passport was not an “admission” and that since he was not admitted, he can’t be eligible to adjust status as a permanent resident under INA § 245A.

At the Master hearing, we denied that allegation and the charge of removability. The Judge then set the case for a hearing on the issue. There were a line of cases addressing the issue, with arguments for both the government’s position and our position. Matter of Areguillin and Matter of Orozco were the two main cases at that time. Matter of Areguillin held that it’s the “procedural regularity” of the entry which results in “admission”.  The Orozco case though held that an entry on someone’s passport, such as our case, cannot be an admission, and thus people in this situation would not be able to adjust to permanent resident status despite an I-601 waiver.

Between the Master hearing and the Individual Hearing, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued an interim decision, Matter of Quilantan, which was on point with our case. It reaffirmed Areguillin in that procedural regularity is all that’s needed to be admitted in a particular status, and not the substance of the entry. Thus, someone who entered through customs, was questioned, inspected, and eventually let in despite a fake passport is considered “admitted”.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, we submitted documents to Court and to the government pertaining to our position that our client is in fact admitted and thus, with the waiver of inadmissibility granted despite our client’s fraudulent entry, should be eligible to to apply for permanent residency. At the hearing itself, we had a pre-hearing discussion with the government in which of Matter of Quilantan was discussed. The government agreed with our position and decided to terminate the case without even going through a hearing. The Immigration Judge discussed the issues and eventually terminated removal proceedings for our client.

Jurisdiction for his green card application now goes back to the USCIS in Columbus, Ohio, where his green card should be issued soon.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings for Adjustment of Status With CIS
NATIONALITY: Spanish
LOCATION: San Diego, California

Our client is a Spanish national who came to the U.S. on an R-1 Visa. She resides in San Diego, California. Prior to retaining our firm, she tried to apply for a change of non-immigrant status, got denied, was placed in removal proceedings, married a U.S. Citizen, and filed an I-130 petition and an I-485 green card application simultaneously. She already went to the San Diego Immigration Court several times while the petition was pending. She did not have an attorney and did not know procedurally what to do. Eventually the I-130 marriage petition was approved, however, at the green card interview, the officer told her that they did not have jurisdiction over her case. The green card application was administratively closed. She consulted with our firm on what to do next as she was confused. She had another hearing coming up with the San Diego Immigration Court. We explained that we can terminate removal proceedings and reopen her green card application. Our office was retained and within a few days, we filed a Motion to Terminate with the Immigration Court. The Motion was granted within two weeks. We then wrote a letter to the Chula Vista, CA CIS to reopen our client’s adjustment of status application. Within a few weeks, another green card interview was scheduled for our client. She went to the interview, passed it, and eventually obtained her permanent resident 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. 

{ Comments on this entry are closed }