CASE:   I-601A Hardship Waiver of Inadmissibility

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Mexican

LOCATION: Texas

Our client came to the United States from Mexico in December 2003 without inspection and admission. She married her U.S. citizen husband in 2007. With our firm’s legal assistance, her U.S. Citizen husband filed an I-130 petition for her on January 13, 2014. This I-130 petition was approved on August 12, 2014.

However, our client cannot file for adjustment of status application due to her ground of inadmissibility (entry without inspection and admission). She cannot also apply for an immigrant visa at once and get it – she has a bar. She needs a waiver of inadmissibility to become a green card holder.

Under current law, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are not eligible to adjust status in the United States must travel abroad and obtain an immigrant visa. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence while in the United States must obtain a waiver of inadmissibility to overcome the unlawful presence bars under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act before they can return to the United States

In 2013, the USCIS announced of new policy called the provisional unlawful presence waiver. Beginning March 4, 2013, certain immigrant visa applicants who are spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens (immediate relatives) can apply for provisional unlawful presence waivers before they leave the United States. The provisional unlawful presence waiver process allows individuals, who only need a waiver of inadmissibility for unlawful presence, to apply for a waiver in the United States.

The new process is expected to shorten the time U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives while those family members are obtaining immigrant visas to become lawful permanent residents of the United States.

INA § 212(i) provides for a discretionary waiver of the entry without inspection inadmissibility ground. To qualify for the waiver, the alien must establish that his or her US Citizen spouse would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission. INA § 212(i)(1). In addition to the equities presented, the USCIS may consider the nature of the inadmissibility ground.

There is a seminal BIA case that deals with this waiver.  In Matter of Cervantes, 22 I & N Dec. 560 (BIA 1999), the BIA identified the factors to be considered in determining whether a qualifying relative would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission.  Those factors include: the presence of LPR or USC family ties both within and outside the United States; the conditions in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties to that country; the financial impact of departure from the United States; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to the unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate.

Our client’s I-601A application wasn’t easy, as the US Citizen husband did not have major medical issues. He had a history of depression though, plus their (the son is not a qualifying relative for the waiver, but we argued it’s a big factor for the husband’s hardship) suffers from a great degree of medical hardship. In the I-601A brief and supporting documents, our office included affidavits and medical records.  We argued that if she was removed from the United States, extreme hardship to her husband is clearly foreseeable and evident.

In our brief, we also argued that our client and her husband have maintained strong family ties in the United States, that her husband will have difficulty in finding the same level of employment in Mexico, and that her U.S. citizen child and her husband will face extreme emotional difficulties if she is removed.

On May 18, 2015, we filed the I-601A waiver application which included the brief in support, her husband’s extensive medical examination records, and other documents that demonstrated hardship to her husband if she is removed from the United States.

However, on August 17, 2015, the USCIS issued Request for Evidence (RFE) for our client’s case. USCIS explicitly requested our client to submit more evidence to prove extreme hardship to her U.S. citizen husband if she is forced to relocate in Mexico. In response to this RFE, our office prepared a response brief along with more. Our office filed the response to RFE on September 16, 2015.

Eventually, her I-601A waiver was approved on September 25, 2015. Now, she can file packet 3 and 4 here in the United States, and would go to Mexico shortly to get her immigrant visa.

{ 0 comments }

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

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Mexican Client in Indiana

The USCIS issued a memorandum in August 2012 regarding deferred action of childhood arrivals cases (DACA). According to the USCIS Deferred Action Memorandum, 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 August 1995 without inspection and admission through the U.S. / Mexico border when he was only 6 years old.

As of June 15, 2012, our client was twenty-three (23) years old.

Our client also finished high school in the United States in 2008.

Also, since his last entry to the United States in August 1995, our client never left.

He was physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012 and has continuously resided here since August of 1995.

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.

Accordingly, our client was eligible for this relief.

After he retained our office, we informed him of all supporting documents we would need. Our client sent us supporting documents that proved our client’s education, physical presence in the United States, and his 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 November 12, 2014, our office filed her I-821D and I-765 to the USCIS. However, on February 5, 2015, the USCIS issued Request for Evidence (RFE) and requested our client to submit more evidence to establish that he has continuously resided in the United States during the 5-year period immediately before June 15, 2102 and up to the time of filing. Our office prepared and filed the Response to RFE with more evidence to the USCIS on April 21, 2015. Eventually, on May 11, 2015, 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.

{ 0 comments }

CASE:   Immigrant Visa / I-601A Hardship Waiver of Inadmissibility

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Mexican

LOCATION: Ohio / Ciudad Juarez, Mexico (Visa Interview)

Our client came to the United States from Mexico in July 2003 without inspection and admission. When he made his entry to the U.S., he was only 16 year old.

He married his U.S. citizen wife in 2011 and they have a U.S. citizen child together. Through our office’s assistance, his U.S. Citizen wife filed an I-130 petition for him on July 19, 2013. This I-130 petition was approved on January 15, 2014.

However, our client cannot file for adjustment of status due to his ground of inadmissibility. He needs a waiver of inadmissibility to become a green card holder – a 601A provisional waiver.

Under current law, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are not eligible to adjust status in the United States must travel abroad and obtain an immigrant visa. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence while in the United States must obtain a waiver of inadmissibility to overcome the unlawful presence bars under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act before they can return to the United States

Last year, the USCIS announced of new policy called the provisional unlawful presence waiver. Beginning March 4, 2013, certain immigrant visa applicants who are spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens (immediate relatives) can apply for provisional unlawful presence waivers before they leave the United States. The provisional unlawful presence waiver process allows individuals, who only need a waiver of inadmissibility for unlawful presence, to apply for a waiver in the United States.

The new process is expected to shorten the time U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives while those family members are obtaining immigrant visas to become lawful permanent residents of the United States.

INA § 212(i) provides for a discretionary waiver of the entry without inspection inadmissibility ground. To qualify for the waiver, the alien must establish that his or her US Citizen spouse would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission. INA § 212(i)(1). In addition to the equities presented, the USCIS may consider the nature of the inadmissibility ground.

There is a seminal BIA case that deals with this waiver.  In Matter of Cervantes, 22 I & N Dec. 560 (BIA 1999), the BIA identified the factors to be considered in determining whether a qualifying relative would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission.  Those factors include: the presence of LPR or USC family ties both within and outside the United States; the conditions in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties to that country; the financial impact of departure from the United States; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to the unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate.

Our client’s I-601A application had a good chance since our client’s U.S. Citizen wife suffers from a great degree of medical hardship. Also, his U.S. citizen son has medical hardships as well. In the I-601A brief and supporting documents, our office included extensive medical reports of his wife.  We argued that if he was removed from the United States, extreme hardship to his husband is clearly foreseeable and evident.  His wife has ongoing medical hardships and she would not be able to take care of her own needs and the bulk of their family chores, most importantly taking care of their young child. Also, it would be extremely difficult for her to get the same level of therapy and satisfactory access to medical services in Mexico in case she joins our client there.

In our brief, we also argued that our client and his wife have maintained strong family ties in the United States, that his wife will have difficulty in finding the same level of employment in Mexico, that our client has good employment in the United States, and that his U.S. citizen child and his wife will face extreme financial and emotional difficulties if he is removed.

On August 14, 2014, we filed the I-601A waiver application which included the brief in support, his wife’s extensive medical examination records, and other documents that demonstrated hardship to his wife if he is removed from the United States.

Eventually, his I-601A waiver was approved on October 22, 2014.

Once his I-601A waiver was approved, he retained our office again for his immigrant visa processing. Our office prepared and filed his immigrant visa application on November 26, 2014. In February 2015, the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico informed our office that they scheduled an immigrant visa interview for our client. Our client went back to Mexico to appear at his interview on March 5, 2015. On March 5, 2015, our client appeared at his immigrant visa interview at the Consulate, and the Consulate officer approved his immigrant visa on the same day.

Now, our client is back in the United States with an approved immigrant visa and he will get his green card in the mail within two weeks.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage Based Adjustment of Status / 245(i)

CLIENT: Mexican

LOCATION: Ohio

Our Mexican client came to the U.S. without inspection and admission by crossing U.S./Mexico border in October 1999. She has stayed here ever since. She got married to a US Citizen and in 2001 and her husband filed an I-130 for her in March 2001. She gave birth to a U.S. Citizen child thereafter. However, her first husband left her while pregnant, and the I-130 was denied. Yet she remained in the United States. Thereafter, she married her second U.S. husband in July 2008.

Our client contacted us around June of 2014 for consultation and sought legal assistance for her adjustment of status. After consultation, we determined that she is eligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(i), if we can only show physical presence in December 2000. Our client retained us on June 11, 2014.

Prior to retaining our firm, her U.S. citizen ex-husband filed an I-130 petition for her back in March 2001. Therefore, she was a beneficiary of an immigrant petition filed after January 15, 1998 and before April 30, 2001. Though the I-130 was denied, we explained that the I-130 petition was “approvable when it was filed” because they had a child together.

Section 245(i) of the INA allows certain foreign nationals to become permanent residents of the United States despite entering without inspection (EWI) or overstaying (if beneficiary of petitions filed not by an immediate relative). Immigrants are barred from adjusting their status if they entered the United States without first being inspected and admitted by a Customs and Border Patrol officer and if they have either failed to maintain lawful status or been unlawfully employed in the country, with certain exceptions. Section 245(i) was first added to law in 1994 to allow certain people who otherwise would not be eligible to adjust their status to be able to do so upon payment of a $1,000 fine.

Four years later, on January 14, 1998, Congress phased Section 245(i) out of law. Immigrants and their families who had already begun the process of changing their status under Section 245(i) by January 14, 1998 were grandfathered into the section’s benefits. However, this left thousands of otherwise qualified persons who had not begun the process unable to adjust status in the United States. They could not return to their countries to begin the legal process of obtaining their permanent residency in the United States also without being subject to either a three- or a 10-year bar upon returning to the United States.

On December 21, 2000, Congress extended the qualifying date for Section 245(i) benefits to April 30, 2001. This law allowed immigrants who had labor certifications or visa petitions filed on their behalf between 1998 and April 30, 2001, to qualify for adjustment of status. They have to prove physical presence in December 2000.

The USCIS has a list of “possible” documents to prove physical presence. However, our client did not have any of these. “Employment records” typically mean pay stubs, or W2s, or any official government document pertaining to work. She had none of those because she just got paid in cash. She cleaned houses when she first came. Thus, we argued that a letter from her ex-employer should suffice as “employment record”. We also wrote that the fact that she got married early in 2001 means that she met her husband in the US at or prior to December 2000. It was a gray area argument but our client was willing to go forth with it.

On November 19, 2014, our office filed their I-485 adjustment of status applications under the 245(i) category.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices and fingerprint appointment all came on time. There was no RFEs even.  We thoroughly prepared our client prior to her interview as well.

On February 23, 2015, our client was interviewed at the Cincinnati, Ohio USCIS Field Office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu, Esq. from our office accompanied our clients as well. The interview went well, and her adjustment of status application was approved on February 26, 2015. After a long wait, our client is finally a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

CASE:   I-601 Hardship Waiver of Inadmissibility

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Mexican

LOCATION: I-130 petitioner is in Pittsburgh, PA and I-601 beneficiary is in Juarez, Mexico

Our client came to the United States from Mexico in February 2002 without inspection and admission. Later, he married his U.S. citizen wife in April 2012. In July 2012, his U.S. Citizen wife filed an I-130 petition for him and his biological children (Petitioner’s step-children) who were residing in Mexico. These I-130 petitions were approved on March 7, 2013. At the time of I-130 petition filing, they did not receive legal assistance from lawyers. Therefore, our client went back to Mexico to appear at his immigrant visa interview despite the fact that he had entry bar because of his unlawful presence and illegal entry to the U.S.

In February 2014, our client and his two children had an interview at the U.S. Consulate Office in Mexico. The step-children’s immigrant visas were approved. However, for our client, he was asked to file a 601 waiver of inadmissibility, due to his illegal entry in 2002 and illegal stay in the United States.  To get legal assistance for this I-601 waiver for our client, our client’s wife contacted our office in February and retained our office on February 27, 2014.

Under current law, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are not eligible to adjust status in the United States must travel abroad and obtain an immigrant visa. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence while in the United States must obtain a waiver of inadmissibility to overcome the unlawful presence bars under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act before they can return to the United States

INA § 212(i) provides for a discretionary waiver of the entry without inspection inadmissibility ground. To qualify for the waiver, the alien must establish that his or her US Citizen spouse would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission. INA § 212(i)(1). In addition to the equities presented, the USCIS may consider the nature of the inadmissibility ground.

There is a seminal BIA case that deals with this type of waiver.  In Matter of Cervantes, 22 I & N Dec. 560 (BIA 1999), the BIA identified the factors to be considered in determining whether a qualifying relative would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission.  Those factors include: the presence of LPR or USC family ties both within and outside the United States; the conditions in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties to that country; the financial impact of departure from the United States; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to the unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate.

Our client’s I-601 application had a good chance since our client’s U.S. Citizen wife suffers from a great degree of financial, medical, and psychological hardships. In the I-601 brief and supporting documents, our office included extensive documentation to support her hardship. We argued that if he was removed from the United States, extreme hardship to his wife is clearly foreseeable and evident.  His wife has ongoing hardships and she would not be able to take care of her own needs and the bulk of their family chores. Also, it would be extremely difficult for her to get the financial ability in Mexico in case she joins our client there.

In our brief, we also argued that our client and his wife have maintained strong family ties in the United States, that his wife will have difficulty in finding the same level of employment in Mexico, that our client has good employment in the United States, and that his U.S. citizen wife will face extreme financial and emotional difficulties if he cannot come back to the United States.

On April 16, 2014, we filed the I-601 waiver application which included a brief in support and supporting documents that demonstrated hardship to his wife if our client is not able to come back to the United States.  However, on August 11, 2014, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) to our client and requested more supplemental documents to demonstrate the hardship that our client’s US citizen wife will face if he is barred to come back to the United States.  In response to the RFE, our office prepared a detailed Response to RFE brief along with our client’s affidavit and other documents to show his wife’s hardships. Our office filed the Response to RFE to the USCIS on October 20, 2014.

Eventually, his I-601 waiver was approved on October 25, 2014.

{ 0 comments }

CASE:   I-601A Hardship Waiver of Inadmissibility

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Mexican

LOCATION: Ohio

Our client came to the United States from Mexico in July 2003 without inspection and admission. When he made his entry to the U.S., he was only 16 year old.

He married his U.S. citizen wife in 2011 and they have a U.S. citizen child together. Through our office’s assistance, his U.S. Citizen wife filed an I-130 petition for him on July 19, 2013. This I-130 petition was approved on January 15, 2014.

However, our client cannot file for adjustment of status application due to his ground of inadmissibility. He needs a waiver of inadmissibility to become a green card holder.

Under current law, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are not eligible to adjust status in the United States must travel abroad and obtain an immigrant visa. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence while in the United States must obtain a waiver of inadmissibility to overcome the unlawful presence bars under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act before they can return to the United States

Last year, the USCIS announced of new policy called the provisional unlawful presence waiver. Beginning March 4, 2013, certain immigrant visa applicants who are spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens (immediate relatives) can apply for provisional unlawful presence waivers before they leave the United States. The provisional unlawful presence waiver process allows individuals, who only need a waiver of inadmissibility for unlawful presence, to apply for a waiver in the United States.

The new process is expected to shorten the time U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives while those family members are obtaining immigrant visas to become lawful permanent residents of the United States.

INA § 212(i) provides for a discretionary waiver of the entry without inspection inadmissibility ground. To qualify for the waiver, the alien must establish that his or her US Citizen spouse would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission. INA § 212(i)(1). In addition to the equities presented, the USCIS may consider the nature of the inadmissibility ground.

There is a seminal BIA case that deals with this waiver.  In Matter of Cervantes, 22 I & N Dec. 560 (BIA 1999), the BIA identified the factors to be considered in determining whether a qualifying relative would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission.  Those factors include: the presence of LPR or USC family ties both within and outside the United States; the conditions in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties to that country; the financial impact of departure from the United States; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to the unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate.

Our client’s I-601A application had a good chance since our client’s U.S. Citizen wife suffers from a great degree of medical hardship. Also, his U.S. citizen son has medical hardships as well (can’t me the qualifying relative, but still an argument that could be imputed to his US Citizen wife).

In the I-601A brief and supporting documents, our office included extensive medical reports of his wife.  We argued that if he was removed from the United States, extreme hardship to his husband is clearly foreseeable and evident.  His wife has ongoing medical hardships and she would not be able to take care of her own needs and the bulk of their family chores, most importantly taking care of their young child. Also, it would be extremely difficult for her to get the same level of therapy and satisfactory access to medical services in Mexico in case she joins our client there.

In our brief, we also argued that our client and his wife have maintained strong family ties in the United States, that his wife will have difficulty in finding the same level of employment in Mexico, that our client has good employment in the United States, and that his U.S. citizen child and his wife will face extreme financial and emotional difficulties if he is removed.

On August 14, 2014, we filed the I-601A waiver application which included a brief in support, his wife’s extensive medical examination records, and other documents that demonstrated hardship to his wife if he is removed from the United States.

Eventually, his I-601A waiver was approved on October 22, 2014. Now, he can file packet 3 and 4 here in the United States, and would go to Mexico shortly to get his immigrant visa.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization)

APPLICANT: Mexican

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client contacted us in June 2014 to seek legal representation for his naturalization and citizenship N-400 application. He came to the United States from Mexico and obtained his green card in July 1991. He retained our office for his naturalization and citizenship N-400 application on June 23, 2014.

The application was filed on June 25, 2014 with all supporting documents. Our office prepared him before his naturalization interview in our office. On September 5, 2014, our client appeared for his N-400 interview at the Cleveland CIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our client as well. Our client answered all questions correctly and passed his naturalization and citizenship N-400 interview. Eventually, his naturalization application was approved on September 11, 2014. His oath taking is scheduled in which he will become a naturalized U.S. Citizen.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-485 Adjustment of Status based on approved I-360 Petition

NATIONALITY: Mexican

LOCATION: Ohio

Our Mexican client came to the U.S. in June, 2004. He entered the United States without admission and inspection and he has lived in Ohio since then.

In May 2012, he contacted our office to seek legal representation for his I-360 petition. According to his story, his marital life was tough and he eventually was abused by his spouse.  With his story and other evidence, our office determined that he would be eligible for I-360 self-petition as a spouse of an abusive U.S. citizen.

Our client experienced domestic violence and spousal abuse during his marriage. His wife physically and mentally abused our client throughout the years. Thus, we prepared and filed his I-360 petition, which included 21 exhibits and a detailed brief to the USCIS Vermont Service Center on July 19, 2012.

Despite our client’s thoroughly prepared I-360 application, in June 2013, the USCIS Vermont Service Center issued a Request for Evidence (RFE).  Specifically, the RFE letter requested our client to submit more documents to prove his good moral character. Our client and our office thoroughly gathered the requested documents, and filed a response to RFE on August 29, 2013.

Eventually, on October 7, 2013, the USCIS Vermont Service Center approved our client’s I-360 petition.

With the approved I-360 petition, our firm prepared and filed the Adjustment of Status Application on April 7, 2014.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients via conference all.

On June 26, 2014, our client was interviewed at the Columbus, OH USCIS.  Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu accompanied our client as well. Eventually, on July 22, 2014, the USCIS approved our client’s adjustment of status application and issued a green card.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-360 Petition

NATIONALITY: Mexican

LOCATION: Ohio

Our Mexican client came to the U.S. in June, 2004. He entered the United States without admission and inspection and he has lived in Ohio since then. In May 2012, he contacted our office to seek legal representation for his I-360 petition. According to his story, our client’s marital life was tough and he eventually was abused by his spouse.  With his story and other evidence, our office determined that he would be eligible for I-360 self-petition as a spouse of an abusive U.S. citizen.

Our client experienced domestic violence and spousal abuse during his marriage. His wife physically and mentally abused our client throughout the years. Thus, we prepared and filed his I-360 petition, which included 21 exhibits and a detailed brief to the USCIS Vermont Service Center on July 19, 2012.

Despite our client’s thoroughly prepared I-360 application, in June 2013, the USCIS Vermont Service Center issued a Request for Evidence (RFE).  Specifically, the RFE letter requested our client to submit more documents to prove his good moral character. Our client and our office thoroughly gathered the requested documents, and filed a response to RFE on August 29, 2013.

Finally, on October 7, 2013, the USCIS Vermont Service Center approved our client’s I-360 petition. With the approved I-360, our client can file his I-485 adjustment of status application to the USCIS for his permanent residency.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Administrative Closure in Removal Proceedings

CLIENT: Mexican

LOCATION: Atlanta, GA

Our client came to the United States in April 1994 from Mexico. When he entered the U.S, he was not inspected and admitted. He has stayed in the United States ever since and never left.  He now lives in Atlanta, GA with two U.S. citizen children. He is a good worker and a good father for his kids.

In 2010, he was picked up and detained by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Moreover, he did not even know he had a final order of removal, so he contacted our office.  With our office’s assistance, he filed a Motion to Reopen in Absentia and this Motion was granted by the Atlanta Immigration Court in 2010.  After that he was placed in removal proceeding again.

On August 25, 2011, Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office represented our client at his master calendar hearing at the Atlanta Immigration Court. We did pleadings and asked for cancellation of removal for non-LPR relief. The individual hearing was scheduled for September 11, 2013.

Our client did not have enough hardships and we understood we were with one of the toughest judges in the country, so with consent from our client, our office sought prosecutorial discretion with the DHS to administratively close our client’s case. We note that our client at this point already obtained his work permit.

Our request was based on John Morton’s Memorandum issued on June 17, 2011. Former USCIS Director John Morton issued a memorandum clarifying and expanding prior Immigration and Customs Enforcement directives regarding prosecutorial discretion.

This memorandum notes that prosecutorial discretion should be exercised in a wide range of situations including “granting deferred action, granting parole, or staying a final order of removal.” ICE now considers nineteen non-exclusive factors, including the following factors relevant to this case:

• The agency’s civil immigration enforcement priorities;
• The person’s length of presence in the United States, with particular consideration given to presence while in lawful status;
• The person’s criminal history, including arrests, prior convictions, or outstanding arrest warrants;
• The person’s immigration history, including any prior removal, outstanding order    of removal, prior denial of status, or evidence of fraud;
• Whether the person poses a national security or public safety concern;
• The person’s ties and contributions to the community, including family relationships;
• The person’s ties to the home country and conditions in the country;
• whether the person has a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, child, or parent;

No one factor is determinative and decisions to exercise prosecutorial discretion should be based on the totality of the circumstances.

On July 25, 2013, our office filed a written request to administratively close proceedings for our client. In the brief, we argued that most factors weigh heavily in favor of an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Our client has been in the U.S. for 19 years, and has two Citizen children. Also, he has never been convicted of any crime, and has always paid taxes. He fully supports his kinds, and sends them to school. We also argued that it would be tough for his family if he was to be deported, considering he is the sole supporter of his two U.S. citizen children throughout their lives.  Our office included numerous letters of support from his co-workers and friends, tax records, criminal record search, and other supporting documents.

On September 11, 2013, at his Individual Hearing, the DHS requested administrative closure for our client’s case based on our request. The court granted the request, and our client’s case is now administratively closed. He can now continue staying in the United States, work legally due to his work permit, and continue renewing it while his case is administratively closed.

{ 0 comments }