{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-130 and Consular Processing (Immigrant Visa)
CLIENT: US Citizen Petitioner Daughter; Chinese Beneficiary Parents in China
LOCATION: Petitioner: Ohio; Beneficiaries: China
I-130 FILED: April 26, 2012
I-130 APPROVED: October 10, 2012
IV APPROVED: May 6, 2013

Our client retained us to bring her parents over from China. She was born and raised in China, but was naturalized in the United States.

On April 26, 2012, our firm filed the I-130 Petitions to the CIS. There were no Requests for Evidence throughout the pendency of the petition. On October 10, 2012, the I-130 Petitions were approved. We then started the immigrant visa processing phase of trying to get her parents over to the United States.

On March 20, 2013, we filed the immigrant visa packets to the National Visa Center who in turn forwarded our client’s materials to the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, China. An interview notice was set for our client’s parents at the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, and we prepared them for their interview. On May 6, 2013, the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, China approved and issued their immigrant visas.

With the approved immigrant visa, our client’s parents can come to the United States immediately, and they will get their green cards within two weeks of entry.

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 parent petition 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: Bond Redetermination Hearing
APPLICANT: Chinese
LOCATION: Florence Immigration Court AZ

Our office was contacted in April of 2012 regarding one Chinese person who was detained in Florence, Arizona. He tried to enter the United States without valid documents and was incarcerated by immigration officers.

Prior to retention, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement set a bond amount of $15,000.  Our client wished to have that reduced so we filed a motion for bond redetermination with the Florence Immigration Court in Arizona.  Our office communicated with him and his U.S. resident relative in New York, and gathered as much information regarding his relief, equities, criminal record, family ties, and financial ability to post bond.  We also gathered supporting documents from our client’s relatives, from proof of their status and residence, to bank statements and tax returns.

On May 7, 2013, we represented our client at his Florence Arizona Immigration Court bond re-determination hearing.  During the bond re-determination hearing, we explained to the Court that our client already passed his credible fear interview, was not a flight risk, had established his residence upon release, had established his financial ability to post bond, and that he had ample family ties in the United States who submitted proof of his residence and immigration status.  Moreover, our office explained that his lack of criminal record, designated address with contact information from his relative in the United States, ability to post bond, and eligibility for asylum relief clearly demonstrate that the bond should be reduced.  At the end of the hearing, the Immigration Judge took our arguments into account and reduced the bond amount to only $7500.

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 jail case 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: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization) APPLICANT: Chinese LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client came to the United States from China in 2005 as a permanent resident. She came in on an immigrant visa through marriage. She was married for over two years prior to the immigrant visa and green card issuance, and as such she got a ten year green card. However, she got separated from her husband months after her entry.

Since then, she has worked in the United States as a green card holder, but never applied for naturalization.

When you apply for naturalization three years from your green card issuance, you have to still be married to the US Citizen spouse who petitioned you. If you are separated, you have to wait 5 years from the green card issuance date. This DOES NOT preclude the immigration officers from still making inquiries on the bona fide nature or lack thereof of your previous marriage.

She initially filed her Naturalization Application in April 2012.  However, our client contacted us in early May 2012 and asked our legal assistance, guidance and help for her upcoming naturalization interview.  Our client was concerned about two things. She was concerned about her marital history.  Second, she had numerous trips to China for the last five years.

Although she went to China several times, she never was abroad more than 180 days continuously.

Our office prepared her extensively for the interview, and also accompanied her on July 3, 2012 at the Cleveland CIS office. She indeed was questioned about her marital past for over an hour, but she was ready after our preparations.

Our client answered all questions thoroughly and passed her citizenship interview.

Her N-400 was approved on March 20, 2013. Her oath taking is scheduled on April 5, 2013 in which she will be a U.S. Citizen.

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 naturalization and citizenship 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: Asylee Green Card

CLIENT: Chinese

LOCATION: Virginia

Our client and his family members came to the United States from China with a B-2 visa and through our representation, was granted asylum on February 2011 by the USCIS.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an asylee may apply for lawful permanent resident status after he or she has been physically present in the United States for a period of one year after the date he or she was granted asylum status.

Around February 2012, one year after he got his asylee status in the United States, our client contacted our office again and sought legal assistance for his and his family members’ green card application.

We prepared and filed his I-485 Green Card Application on March 7, 2012. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notice and fingerprint appointment all came on time. On March 4, 2013, the USCIS approved our client’s Adjustment of Status application. He and his family members are now permanent residents of the United States.

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 asylum approvals, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office if you have any questions.

{ 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 }

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

CLIENT: Chinese

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

Our client is a Chinese citizen who came to the U.S. on a B-2 Visitor’s Visa in December 2005. She remained in the United States after her authorized stay expired. Because of her overstay, she was placed in removal proceedings, which was initiated at the Los Angeles Immigration Court in California.

Our client married his second husband in December 2011 in Ohio. She initially contacted our office for a Change of Venue to Cleveland.  She retained our office on January 12, 2012.

We then filed a Motion for Change of Venue from Los Angeles to Cleveland on behalf of our client. The Immigration Judge granted the Motion and her case was transferred to the Cleveland Immigration Court.

Our office then prepared and filed an I-130 Petition with a lot of bona fide marriage evidence on January 26, 2012. 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 January 25, 2012 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.

Our client’s I-130 interview was scheduled on October 29, 2012 at the Cincinnati USCIS Field Office. Prior to the interview, our office thoroughly prepared our client and his husband 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 December 8, 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. Eventually, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice on February 12, 2013. 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. <a href=”https://plus.google.com/107743308565341841259?rel=author”>Google</a>

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Bond Redetermination Hearing
APPLICANT: Chinese
LOCATION: Florence Immigration Court AZ

Our office was contacted in December of 2012 regarding one Chinese person who was detained in Florence, Arizona. He tried to enter the United States without valid documents and was incarcerated by immigration officers.

Prior to retention, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement set a bond amount of $15,000.  Our client wished to have that reduced so we filed a motion for bond redetermination with the Florence Immigration Court in Arizona.  Our office communicated with him and his U.S. resident relative in New York, and gathered as much information regarding his relief, equities, criminal record, family ties, and financial ability to post bond.  We also gathered supporting documents from our client’s relatives, from proof of their status and residence, to bank statements and tax returns.

On January 11, 2013, we represented our client at his Florence Arizona Immigration Court bond re-determination hearing.  During the bond re-determination hearing, we explained to the Court that our client already passed his credible fear interview, was not a flight risk, had established his residence upon release, had established his financial ability to post bond, and that he had ample family ties in the United States who submitted proof of his residence and immigration status.  Moreover, our office explained that his lack of criminal record, designated address with contact information from his relative in the United States, ability to post bond, and eligibility for asylum relief clearly demonstrate that the bond should be reduced.  At the end of the hearing, the Immigration Judge took our arguments into account and reduced the bond amount to only $6000.

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 jail case success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

<a href=”https://plus.google.com/107743308565341841259?rel=author”>Google</a>

<a href=”https://plus.google.com/109631653288081090975″ rel=”publisher”>Google+</a>

{ 0 comments }

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

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Chinese Client in Cleveland, OH

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

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

Our client initially came to the United States in March 2000 without admission and inspection by the CBP officers when she was only 15 years old.  As of June 15, 2012, our client was twenty-eight (27) years old. Our client was able to enroll in high school in 2001, but she did not finish.  However, she is currently enrolled in the ABLE program and she goes to class at the local high school in the Cleveland area.  Also, since her last entry to the United States in March 2000, our client never left the United States.

She was physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012 and has continuously resided here since March of 2000. Moreover, our client has never been convicted of a felony, a “significant misdemeanor,” three or more other misdemeanors, and does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Our client retained us on August 15, 2012. We informed her of all supporting documents we would need. Our client and her family members sent us supporting documents that proved our client’s education history, physical presence in the United States, and her initial entry to the United States. Our office also prepared Form I-821D and I-765, and drafted a detailed cover letter demonstrating why our client should merit this relief.

On October 9, 2012, our office filed her I-821D and I-765 to the USCIS. Our client went to the ASC Appointment (Biometric appointment) at the Cleveland, OH USCIS office on November 1, 2012. On December 13, 2012, the USCIS approved our client’s I-821D and I-765, good for two years.

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

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.

Google

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen with the DHS

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 the 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.

Now, our client’s case can be reopened and terminated in Court. He then can file for adjustment of status based on the approved I-130 filed by his U.S. Citizen daughter.

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 success stories, please click here.

For other motion to reopen success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

<a href=”https://plus.google.com/107743308565341841259/posts?rel=author”>Google</a>

{ 0 comments }