CASE:  I-485 Adjustment of Status / I-360 Special Immigrant Juvenile Status Petition

CLIENT: Guatemalan

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After the issuance of the NOID, our office contacted the juvenile court and sought for possible amendment of the judge’s decision. In response to our request, the juvenile court issued an amended decision and held that the sentence regarding the child’s best interests was omitted. The court found that it is not in the best interests of our client to be returned to Guatemala. Our office filed the response to the NOID on February 3, 2014 along with juvenile court’s new decision. Nevertheless, the USCIS approved our client’s I-360 petition on February 19, 2014.

Once his I-360 petition was approved, our office prepared and filed a request to join in a Motion to Terminate to USICE-DHS in Cleveland Office in April 2014. The DHS agreed with our motion, and on December 17, 2014, the Immigration Judge granted our Joint Motion to Terminate proceedings.

After his removal proceedings were terminated, our firm prepared and filed an I-485 adjustment of status application on March 3, 2015. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permit all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients through conference calls. On April 27, 2015, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland USCIS Field Office. The interview went well, and on April 28, 2015, the USCIS approved our client’s adjustment of status application. Now, our client is a green card holder. 

{ 0 comments }

CASE: NACARA Suspension of Deportation

CLIENT: Guatemalans

LOCATION: Cleveland Immigration Court (EOIR)

Our clients came to the United States in 1989 with their parents from Guatemala. They were not inspected and admitted when they came to the United States. Our clients were very young children when they came to the United States. In 1989, their father filed an asylum application. Our clients were derivative applicants of the asylum application and the asylum application is classified under ABC benefits. Ever since, our clients have lived in the United States. The Order to Show Cause were issued against our clients and remaining members of their family in the 90s. Their deportation proceedings (later removal proceedings) were initiated against. Our clients were riders of their mother’s NACARA case until 2013 when she passed away.

They contacted our office in 2013 after they appeared at their master calendar hearings which took place after their mother’s death.  After careful review of their cases, we determined that they are eligible for NACARA Suspension of Deportation relief at the immigration court.

Under immigration law, a Guatemalan who is in either of the two categories described below, and who has not been convicted of an aggravated felony, is eligible for NACARA benefits:

1)      Category 1:

• Entered the U.S. on or before October 1, 1990;
• Registered for ABC benefits on or before December 31, 1991; and
• Has not been apprehended at time of entry after December 19, 1990.

2)      Category 2:

• Filed an application for asylum on or before April 1, 1990.

Moreover, to qualify for NACARA suspension of deportation, the applicant must merit a favorable exercise of discretion, in addition to proving the following:

• Continuous physical presence in the United States for seven years before the application for suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal is filed;
• Good moral character during the seven year period; and
• Removal would cause extreme hardship to the applicant or the applicant’s USC or LPR spouse, parent, or child.

Our clients’ case sufficiently meets the eligibility requirement and we determined that they will likely receive favorable exercise of discretion from the Court. After the Master Calendar Hearing, the Court scheduled an individual hearing date on November 4, 2014.

Our firm worked with our clients and their friends and family members for the application and supplemental documents. We gathered a lot documents regarding their good moral character and continuous residency. Our clients did not have any criminal convictions. We also contacted our client’s friends for supporting documents and letters of support.

In preparing our client for the Individual Hearing, Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office talked to our clients through conference calls. 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 NACARA Suspension of Deportation.

At the Individual Hearing on November 4, 2014, Attorney Yu represented our clients at the Cleveland Immigration Court. Prior to the hearing, Attorney Yu, DHS counsel, and the Immigration Judge had a pre-trial conference. Based on the extensive record and our clients’ background, the DHS agreed that our clients met all of the requisite elements of NACARA relief and deferred their decision to the Court. As a result, on December 1, 2014, the Cleveland Immigration Court granted our clients’ NACARA Suspension of Deportation relief. They have been here since 1989 and suffered a lot in the past. They finally are green card holders.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Dependency Hearing at Juvenile Court

CLIENT: Guatemalan

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{ 0 comments }

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: I-765 Employment Authorization Post Admin Closure

CLIENT: Guatemalan

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States from Guatemala in January 2000.  He entered the United States without valid inspection and admission. He has remained in the United States since then.

Years later, he married his U.S. citizen wife. He was placed in removal proceedings in 2012, and he hired our office to represent him.

At his master calendar hearing, our attorney took pleadings, sought relief under Cancellation of Removal, and filed his application. Our client also filed an I-765 work permit application to the USCIS. This I-765 was approved in March 2012.

Prior to his individual hearing in November 2012, upon request from our office and the Department of Homeland Security, and upon agreement of the Immigration Judge, his removal proceedings were administratively closed.

In February 2013, our client contacted our office again to renew his work permit.

Our office prepared and filed his I-765 work permit application on February 13, 2013.

Our office included a brief with the application because our client’s case was administratively closed; thus, granting a work permit is not automatic, but discretionary.

We cited a DHS memorandum on the issue, quoting their policy in that “Per longstanding federal law, individuals affected by an exercise of prosecutorial discretion will be able to request work authorization, including paying associated fees, and their requests will be separately considered by the USCIS on a case-by-case basis.”

Our office emphasized the equities of our client, how he has worked hard and paid taxes, his lack of any criminal record, and his marriage to a US Citizen.  His case was administrative closed due to several “positive” factors of his case.

Not every work permit application post-administrative closure is approved, but for our client, fortunately it was. The USCIS approved our client’s I-765 work permit renewal request on March 28, 2013. Despite the administrative closure, our client is authorized to work in the United States until March 20, 2014.

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 success stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Immigration Bond Court Hearing / Release from Detention
APPLICANT: Guatemalan
LOCATION: Cleveland Immigration Court, Ohio

Our office was contacted in the middle of July regarding a Guatemalan who was recently picked up by the Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) officers and detained in Ohio. He entered the United States without inspection in 2006.

Prior to retention, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement told us that they have a no bond issuance for our clients, because he was single, had a probation violation issue, has no family ties, and no permanent address. Our client wished to be released.

Upon retention, we filed a motion for bond redetermination with the Cleveland Immigration Court in Ohio. Our office communicated with our client and his U.S. resident relative in Cleveland, and gathered as much information regarding his relief, equities, family ties, and financial ability to post bond. We also gathered supporting documents from those relatives, from proof of their status and residence, to bank statements and tax returns.

On August 7, 2012, we represented our client at his Cleveland Immigration Court master calendar and bond hearings. For the Master Calendar hearing, we did pleadings and sought asylum relief. During the bond re-determination hearing, we explained to the Court that our client 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 their residence and immigration status. Our office explained that his 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 set. At the end of the hearing, the Immigration Judge took our arguments into account and set the bond for our client at $7500.

Our client has been released, and he is now in the process of preparing his asylum application.

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 immigration bond hearing and release from detention 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 }

On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of DHS, Janet Napolitano, issued a memorandum on new prosecutorial discretion standards pertaining to certain illegal aliens. She started by stating that immigrants who were illegally brought to the United States as children “lacked the intent to violate the law” and pose few national security risks.  If the individual meets the following criteria, that person will not be deported or removed from the United States as a result of the prosecutorial discretion.

• Came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
• Has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and is present  in the United States on the date of this memorandum;
• Is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general education development certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;
• Has not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety; and
• Is not above the age of thirty.

For individuals who are granted deferred action by either ICE or USCIS, USCIS shall accept applications to determine whether these individuals qualify for work authorization during this period of deferred action.

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: Cancellation of Removal

CLIENT: Guatemalan

LOCATION: Ohio

ISSUES: Obstruction of Justice Record, Physical Presence Evidence, Hardship

Our client retained our firm one week before his Individual Hearing. He had two attorneys before who withdrew their representation. For over a year he was unrepresented. Our client claims nobody would take their case for that time. Before he retained our firm, he merely mentioned that he filed for Cancellation of Removal and that his hearing was coming up on October 21, 2010 before the Cleveland Immigration Court.

For a non-permanent resident to be eligible for Cancellation of Removal, the alien must prove that s/he:

• Has been physically present in the U.S. continuously for ten years prior to the issue date of the Notice to Appear;
• Has been a person of good moral character;
• Has not been convicted of any crimes that would make her/him inadmissible;
• Her/his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her/his U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, parent, or child.

We took his case upon asking him questions regarding the above elements. We were not sure if his claim was strong. Our client did not have copies of anything he submitted.

The day after we were retained, we went to the Immigration Court in Cleveland for a file review of our client. We made copies of the file and assessed the strength of their case. We thought at that point it was weak. But we only had 6 days left, 4 business days.

On October 18, 2010, 3 days before our client’s Individual Hearing, pursuant to our client’s request, we filed a Motion for Continuance to allow our firm to prepare for the Individual Hearing and to allow him time to submit more supporting documents. As mentioned, he was not represented for over a year. It was a stretch because the hearing was in three days. Court rules require at least 15 days for pre-hearing motions, but we were only retained 7 days before and asked for Court discretion. We kept following up with the Court but there was no decision for the next two days, understandably so.

Preparing anyway for the Individual Hearing, our firm worked together with the client in the small time we had to prepare supplemental exhibits. We called them several times for supporting documents. The day before the Individual Hearing, there was still no decision on the Motion for Continuance. Our firm eventually was able to gather supporting documents and prepared Supplemental Evidence with 34 exhibits, and arranged them pursuant to the specific elements of Cancellation of Removal eligibility. We arranged the medical documents for each of the three daughters. We arranged all his physical presence documents according to the specific year they referred to, and filed them in person with the Cleveland Immigration Court. We also sent service in person with the Department of Homeland Security. There was no sense in mailing them – the hearing was the next day.

We then prepared the client for his hearing, worked overtime and went over questions several rounds for him and his three witnesses. We focused on the extreme and exceptional hardships his three US Citizen daughters and US Citizen wife would face.  He did not have enough documents as to his physical presence, so we made sure he establishes them through his testimony, the supporting letters that he submitted, and through the consistency of his answers with the witnesses.

At the Individual Hearing, we first made an oral request for a continuance. We explained we were only retained 7 days before, were ready to proceed with testimony, but requested that a continuance be granted if the case would be denied due to some technicality or lack of documentation that could be obtained in a reasonable amount of time. Testimony then followed and we questioned the alien extensively on the hardships his children and wife would face. Our client was prepared, was very consistent, and was honest in his answers. He was detailed with the specific medical issues of each of his daughters. He had a conviction for obstruction of justice but we made sure all the facts are on record to establish that his offense was within the petty offense exception for crimes of moral turpitude, which means despite the conviction, he is still eligible for Cancellation of Removal.

We then proceeded with his US Citizen wife, who also did a good job in her testimony regarding the hardships she and her daughters would face if our client was deported to Guatemala.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Judge granted Cancellation of Removal for our client. He once came illegally in July of 1998. He never had any status. He worked hard doing random work in factories and restaurants. He married a U.S. Citizen and had three US Citizen children.  A good person, father, and husband, who finally retained an attorney for his Individual Hearing 7 days before its scheduled date. Finally, after 12 years of hard work and perseverance, our client is now a permanent resident (green card holder) 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. 

{ 0 comments }