CASE: Diversity Immigrant Visa

CLIENT: Cameroonians

LOCATION: Cameroon

Our client was in the United States on an F-1 status. He stopped school and stayed here anyway. In 2014 our client applied for the Diversity Visa program and won the lottery. The question for him was whether his F-1 overstay would allow him to get an immigrant visa when he goes home. He was hesitant at first, but we explained to him that being out of status is not equivalent to being unlawfully present. As an F-1 student, if you overstay, only if DHS or Court finds you unlawfully present would unlawful presence incur. Thus, he did not have a three or ten year bar.

The Diversity Immigrant Visa program is a United States congressionally mandated lottery program for receiving a United States Permanent Resident Card. It is also known as the Green Card Lottery. The lottery is administered on an annual basis by the Department of State and conducted under the terms of Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Section 131 of the Immigration Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-649) amended INA 203 to provide for a new class of immigrants known as “diversity immigrants” (DV immigrants). The Act makes available 55,000 permanent resident visas annually to natives of countries deemed to have low rates of immigration to the United States.

Our client retained our office on May 14, 2014 for his and his wife’s immigrant visa packets. Our office prepared and filed the immigrant visa packets, together with all necessary supporting documents, on May 22, 2014. Our office also prepared and drafted a brief to explain the eligibility of his diversity lottery based immigrant visa DESPITE HIS F-1 OVERSTAY. Our argument was that since he came on an F-1 and was never caught overstaying, that he did not have a bar to coming back because he did not incur unlawful presence.

Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients. On December 23, 2014, our client was interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Yaoundé, Cameroon. The interview went well, and the Embassy issued immigrant visas for our client and his wife.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT in Immigration Court

CLIENT: Cameroonian

LOCATION: Memphis Immigration Court

Our Cameroonian client came to the United States in December 1999 on an F-1 student visa. In July 2001, he filed an asylum application to the USCIS, was interviewed by the USCIS, and later his case was referred to the Immigration Court.  Thereafter, a Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceedings. After he got the Notice to Appear, he appeared at his initial master calendar hearing at the Memphis Immigration Court with his previous attorney.

His removal proceedings were continued, but he could not appear at his individual hearing in April 2003 due to hospitalization.  Thus, the Court found him removable and ordered him removed in absentia.

Later, in April 2011, he filed Motion to Reopen with assistance of his previous immigration counsel.  However, this Motion to Reopen was denied by the Court in July 2011.

Thereafter, he contacted our office to determine whether he can file a Motion to Reopen again.  After consultation, we explained to him that the only way the Court can reopen his case is based on changed country conditions in Cameroon.  It is because our client’s second Motion to Reopen can be considered untimely filed and numerically barred.

Our client decided to retain our office on November 22, 2011 for a Motion to Reopen based on changed country conditions.

Under immigration law, if an applicant seeks to make an asylum claim and a final order of removal has been entered and the ninety-day filing deadline for motions to reopen has passed, the BIA and the majority of Circuit Courts have found that the applicant may only file the asylum application through a motion to reopen and only under the “changed country conditions” provision of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i).  Thus, our office prepared the Motion to Reopen based on the changed country conditions in Cameroon.

On March 6, 2012, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Memphis Immigration Court.

W included a detailed affidavit regarding his involvement in a political activist group in Cameroon, and several affidavits from his fellow members who confirmed his involvement with the organization.  We claimed that the number of arrests and detentions of his political group member had recently escalated since his original removal hearing in 2003 resulting in changed country conditions.  We also attached a letter from a human rights officer in which he stated that he knew our client’s political involvement in Cameroon. Moreover, other supporting documents such as newspaper articles and a country report of Cameroon were submitted (24 exhibits).  On March 29, 2012, the DHS filed a Response in Opposition to our Motion.  Nevertheless, on May 2, 2012, the Memphis Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case.

Once his case was  reopened, he retained our office again. Our attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu appeared at his master calendar hearing via telephonic appearance and his individual hearing was scheduled on September 29, 2014 at the Memphis Immigration Court.

Our client was persecuted and harmed in Cameroon based on his political opinion and movement.  Our client was scared to go back home to Cameroon, fearing that he will be persecuted based on his political opinion. Moreover, our client’s late father and his uncle were mistreated and harmed in Cameroon due to their political opinion as well.

We helped him file his asylum application and represented him in immigration court hearings. We also asked him to provide supporting documents corroborating his claim, some of which were a letter from his family, colleagues and friends in Cameroon. Our firm also did some research on articles related to his claim, and the type of persecution he will experience in Cameroon if sent back.

Our client’s individual hearing was scheduled on September 29, 2014 at the Memphis Immigration Court. Attorney Sung Hee Yu from our firm prepared him extensively. He also represented our client at his Individual Hearing at the Memphis Immigration Court.

Prior to the hearing, the Immigration Judge held a pre-trial conference with Attorney Yu and the DHS counsel. During the pre-trial conference, all of the possible issues were examined. At the conclusion of the conference, withholding of removal was granted.

After the hearing, the Immigration Judge granted Withholding of Removal for our client based on his persecution in Cameroon. His removal will be withheld and our client can get his Employment Authorization Document and will not be deported.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751

APPLICANT: Cameroonian

LOCATION: Virginia

Our client contacted our office in January of 2014 regarding her I-751 application.

She is from Cameroon and she married a U.S. citizen in 2011. Through her marriage, she obtained a 2-year conditional green card in April of 2012.  Her conditional residency terminated in April 2014.

To comply with immigration requirements, our client and her husband had to file an I-751 Joint Petition to Remove Conditions. She retained our office on January 29, 2014 and our office prepared an I-751 application for our client with bona fide marriage evidence.

On March 17, 2014, our office filed an I-751 application to the USCIS with multiple affidavits from her friends and family members, joint bank statements, joint tax records, utility bills, and photos of our client and her husband to demonstrate the bona fideness of their marriage.

There was no RFE issuance or interview request for our client’s I-751 application. As a result, on September 22, 2014, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application and our client received her 10-year green card.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Green Card

CLIENT: Cameroonian

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States from Cameroon and he is currently pursuing his degree in Cleveland, Ohio on an F-1 student visa. He married his current wife, who is a green card holder, in September 2012.  After marriage, his wife filed an I-130 petition on behalf of our client in November 2012. Due to family and school issues, his wife had to move to Maryland with her mother. The beneficiary had to stay in Cleveland to maintain his F-1 status. This I-130 petition was approved in October 2013.

Our client retained our office on October 16, 2013 for his I-485 adjustment of status application. We could file the I-485 application because the priority date for F2A category was current at the time of filing. They were living separately at that time, but based on their bona fide evidence, we thought we can still prove an ongoing relationship. Our office prepared and filed an I-485 adjustment of status application, but we also included an affidavit from both of them to explain why they had to live separately (work, school, family etc.). We filed the application together with all necessary supporting documents on November 20, 2013. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. Despite them living apart, due to the bona fide evidence submitted as well as the affidavit, there were no Requests for Evidence.

Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients at our office. On January 28, 2014, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS office. Our attorney accompanied them at their interview as well. The interview went well, and the priority date for our client was current at the time of the interview. Despite potential issues that our clients were worried about prior to retaining our firm, the green card application was approved on the same day.

{ 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: Asylum in Immigration Court

CLIENT: Cameroonian

LOCATION: Cleveland Immigration Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Motion to Reopen
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 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 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 another 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 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.  Our client now does not have the final order of removal and may seek to terminate removal proceedings.

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 success stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Asylum in Immigration Court
CLIENT: Cameroonian
LOCATION: Cleveland Immigration Court

Our Cameroonian client came to the United States on an F-1 visa in December 2011. She was persecuted and harmed in Cameroon based on her political opinion and political activism, so within one year of her entry, she filed an asylum application (Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and relief under the CAT) to the USCIS.

She was interviewed at the Asylum Office in Chicago, but her case was referred to an immigration judge in July 2012. The Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceedings. The USCIS thought that our client’s testimony was different from that of her written statement.

After the case was referred to the Immigration Court, our client contacted our office in late July of 2012, and eventually retained our office on July 30, 2012.

Our client was scared to go back home to Cameroon, fearing that she will be persecuted based on her political opinion and her past participation with human rights activist groups. While our client was a college student in Cameroon, she became a human rights activist involved in educating and informing fellow students on campus about their basic fundamental rights. Our client organized some student movement activities, joined student marches against government’s actions and participated in political activities. As a result, she was arrested and detained multiple times by the Cameroonian police and has experienced harm and mistreatments in numerous occasions.

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

Our client’s individual hearing was scheduled on October 19, 2012 at the Cleveland Immigration Court. Attorney Sung Hee Yu from our firm prepared her extensively twice, both of which lasted several hours. He also represented our client at her Individual Hearing.

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

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 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 }