CASE: Change of Status from H-4 to F-1

CLIENT: Pakistani

LOCATION: Columbus, Ohio

Our client has been on H-4 status for many years. Those on H-4 get their status from being the under-21 child or spouse of someone on an H-1B temporary worker status. His father’s H-1B was extended, but his H-4 extension was cut short of the extension approval of his father because he was about to turn 21. Those on H-4 are allowed to study in the United States. Our client’s father wanted him to continue his studies in preparation for medical school and was concerned because his son’s H-4 status was cut short. Our firm was retained and we helped the client obtain supporting documents for the Change of Status. On September 20, 2010, before our client turned 21, we filed the I-539 Change of Status. On October 15, 2010, the Change of Status was approved. Our client is now on F-1 and can continue his pre-med studies.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: 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 }

CASE: Jail Case

CLIENT: Mexican

LOCATION: Ohio

CLIENT’S RESIDENCE: New Jersey

Our firm was retained on September 29, 2010 to have a Mexican national released on bond. He was detained in Seneca County Jail in Tiffin Ohio. Our contact was his employer in New Jersey. Prior to retention, we already told the contact what we needed. Our client came in the United States illegally in March 1999, had no criminal records, was employed, had a permanent home in the U.S., and had two U.S. Citizen children. Upon retention, we immediately contacted the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and explained that our client was not a flight risk. We showed documents including his bank statement, proof of lease, and birth certificates of his U.S. Citizen children. We explained that our client would be prima facie eligible for Cancellation of Removal. The next day, ICE granted our client’s release on a $5000 bond. We immediately spoke with our client’s contact in New Jersey and guided him in the process of posting a bond. We did our own research to look for specific bond companies in New Jersey to aid our client. Our office had to call ICE and the bond company several time to coordinate the information and make sure systems were updated regarding the bond posting. Our client’s contact was hoping he gets released before the weekend, or else he would have to spend an extra two days in jail. On October 1, 2010 Friday, at around 1:45pm, our client was released. He currently is in New Jersey awaiting his hearing where he would apply for cancellation for removal.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: Removal Proceedings, Adjustment of Status

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Senegalese

LOCATION: Ohio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: Change of Status from J-1 to B-2 Visitor
NATIONALITY: Filipino (Philippines)
LOCATION: Ohio

Our client is a Filipino national who came to the U.S. on a J-1 Visa. She consulted with our firm a few weeks before the expiration of her J-1 status. She wanted to continue to stay in the United States for a few more months to visit her relatives and see what her options were. We explained to her that CIS has been more stringent on Visitor status applications. We also explained that a Change of Status from a J-1 is even harder than an Visitor extension application. Upon retention, we asked her to prepare a statement on her plans after the expiration of her J-1 program. We asked her to provide as much detail as possible as we reviewed her drafts several times. We made sure all addresses, contact information, and dates on her statements were complete and accurate. We made sure all her plans were supported by corroborating evidence as exhibits to the application to avoid a possible Request for Evidence by the CIS. Letters from family and friends all over the country were obtained, as well as financial and employment documents from the Philippines. We filed the Application and in a few weeks, her change of status to B-2 visitor was approved with no Requests for Evidence.

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 }