Solving All Your Immigration Needs

Recent Success Stories

Detention/Removal

I-130 Petition Approved for Client with Final Order
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Our client has a final order from 2001 and came to our office for help to see what could be done with his case.  Our client is married to a U.S. citizen and has two U.S. citizen children together with his wife.  We informed our client that we could try to reopen his removal/deportation case based on his marriage to his wife.  We found out his wife had already filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative in 2001, but our client never received a final decision on the case.  Upon inquiry we found out that the I-130 Petition had been administratively closed for failure to appear at the USCIS interview in 2006.  We refiled the I-130 Petition in January 2013 demonstrating that our client was in a bona fide marriage.  The I-130 Petition was approved without interview in July 2013.  We can now proceed to try to reopen his case.

I-130 Petition Approved for Married Son of U.S. Citizen
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Our client has a final order and is reporting on an order of supervision. He came to our office in October 2012 for help to see if anything could be done about his deportation case.  Our client's only qualifying family relationship was to his father who was a U.S. citizen.  We reviewed the file and found that he had an approved I-130 Petition from February 2005.  His father previously filed an I-130 Petition on his behalf in February 2002 when his father was a lawful permanent resident and when our client was single.  The I-130 Petition was filed under the preference category for unmarried sons of lawful permanent residents and was approved in February 3, 2005.

We found out that our client had married after the I-130 Petition was approved and before his father was naturalized.  Pursuant to the Regulations, the I-130 Petition that his father had filed in February 2002 should have been automatically revoked when our client married because there is no category for married sons of lawful permanent residents.  Had our client married after his father had naturalized, then his I-130 Petition would have automatically converted to the preference category of married sons of citizens.  Instead, our client no longer had an approved I-130 Petition on file. 

We prepared a new I-130 Petition for our client filed under the preference category of married sons of U.S. citizens.  The I-130 Petition was filed in October 2012, and an interview was scheduled for April 2013.  At the interview, the adjudicating officer incorrectly informed us that we did not need to file the 2nd I-130 Petition.  We pointed out the error to the officer and requested that the 2nd I-130 Petition be adjudicated since the former I-130 Petition was automatically revoked upon our client's marriage.  The officer approved the 2nd I-130 Petition one day later.  Our client now has an approved I-130 Petition on file and will be able to use this petition in the pursuit of legal status at a future date.

Cancellation of Removal Applications Granted in Immigration Court and Clients Receive Green Cards
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client has an immigration history of more than 15 years and has been to four different attorneys before coming to our office.  He came to the U.S. with his wife in 1997 from Sri Lanka.  They entered the U.S. on tourist visas and extended their visa.  Before their tourist visa expired, they retained an attorney and changed their visa to an H-1B nonimmigrant visa for someone in a specialty occupation based on our client's wife's occupation as a teacher.  Our client's wife tried to file for a green card through her employer, but the school closed down.  She was able to transfer to a different school and continued working on an H-1B visa.

Our client was then offered a job as an electrician. The electrical company agreed to sponsor our client for his green card.  Our client had experience as an electricial technician in Sri Lanka.  With the help of a second attorney, they filed the labor certification and I-140 visa petition.  Both were approved, and our client filed for his green card.  Our client was scheduled for an interview, and the adjudicating officer questioned him extensively about his skills and knowledge.  The interviewer appeared the question the validity of the position and job offer.  After the interview, the I-140 Petition approval was revoked because the Service made a determination that our client's employer did not have the financial ability to pay our client's wages.  They reached this decision after examining the sponsoring company's tax returns. Our client's green card application was, therefore, denied, and now he and his wife were out of status.

Our client consulted with a third lawyer who only tried to file for a new work permit but did nothing else.  Our client retained a fourth lawyer who decided to refile the green card application without addressing the issues of the revoked I-140 Petition.  Consequently, the green card application was denied for a second time.  Now our client and his wife were put into court proceedings.

Our client then approached our office to represent them in Immigration Court.  After reviewing the facts, we found that our client was eligible for a form of relief called cancellation of removal for nonpermanent residents.  If the applications were approved, then our client and his wife would receive 10-year green cards.  In order to be eligible for this form of relief our clients had to have the following: 1) qualifying U.S. relatives (spouses, parents, and/or children) who are either U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents; 2) continuous physical presence of at least 10 years; 3) no record of disqualifying criminal offenses; 4) good moral character; and 5) evidence that demonstrates that the qualifying relatives would experience exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if our client and his wife were removed from the United States.

Our client had three U.S. citizen children.  We questioned our client and discovered that our client's children had medical issues of asthma and allergies that would pose serious problems if they were forced to return to Sri Lanka with their parents. 

We prepared our client's cancellation of removal applications and provided evidence to demonstrate that they met the aforementioned requirements.  We provided proof that our clients had paid their taxes throughout their time in the U.S. We provided character reference letters to show that our clients were reputable persons in their community and had good moral character.  We provided medical records of our client's children.  We provided school records and proof of extracurricular activites of our client's children.  Lastly, we conducted extensive research and provided Department of State reports and articles to corroborate our argument that our client's children would undergo exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if they were forced to return to Sri Lanka, noting such issues as the high risk of death for individuals with asthma in Sri Lanka because of the problems with air pollution. 

We prepared our clients and their witnesses for the hearing. The Immigration Judge found that our clients met all eligibility requirements and that their children would face exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if they were forced to return to Sri Lanka.  The Immigration Judge granted their applications on the same day, and the government attorney waived appeal.  Our clients received their green card a few weeks later.  After more than 15 years in the United States they were finally lawful permanent residents.

Removal Case Reopened and Green Card Application Approved Based on Marriage to a U.S. Citizen
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client was granted withholding of removal by an Immigration Judge in August 2007.  He was allowed to stay in the U.S. and work, but he did not have any legal status and had a final order of removal. 

Our client later fell in love with and married a U.S. citizen in February 2009. With his wife's help, our client filed a green card application based on his marriage.  The I-130 visa petition was approved in January 2010 showing that USCIS believed that our client was in a valid marriage, but the I-485 green card application was denied because our client had a final order of removal. 

Our client approached our office for help.  We filed a Motion to Reopen his immigration court case in November 2010 based on new relief that was available to him through his wife.  The Immigration Judge granted the Motion in September 2011.  We next filed the green card application with all the necessary supporting documents and prepared our client for his court hearing.  Our client had two criminal convictions, but we believed that those convictions did not make him ineligible for a green card.

Our client was scheduled for his hearing in January 2013.  The Immigration Judge reviewed all the evidence and granted our client's application.  Our client no longer has a final order of removal and now has a 10-year green card.  He can live with his wife in safety and security in the U.S.

Client who had Final Order Receives Green Card After More Than 19 Years in the U.S.
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Our client entered the U.S. without inspection in May 1993.  He applied for asylum which was denied by by the asylum office and the Immigration Judge.  Our client fought the denial and eventually later filed two circuit court appeals, five motions to reopen and was eventually detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement for more than 100 days. 

He came to our office in October 2011 to see if there was anything else that could be done.  He went through six previous attorney's offices before meeting with us.  We filed a Request to Join in  a Motion to Reopen with the Office of Chief Counsel in Chicago describing our client's equities and providing evidence of his good moral character and good faith efforts to obtain legal status.  Their office agreed to join in a motion to reopen, and we filed a Stipulated Joint Motion to Reopen with the Board of Immigration Appeals.  The motion was granted, and our client's case was alive and back in the Immigration Court.  The Immigration Judge agreed to terminate our case, and we filed an I-485 green card application with USCIS in August 2012 based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen.

Our client was scheduled for an interview on November 28, 2012.  We prepared our client for his interview and attended the interview with him and his family.  The case was approved one day later.  After 19 years since entering the U.S. our client finally has obtained legal status.  He can now live in security and peace with his wife and children and will be eligible to for file U.S. citizenship.

Court Case Terminated for Client with Final Order and Green Card Received
Location: Buffalo, New York

Our client entered the United States in July 2000.  She was previously under removal proceedings and was issued a final order in July 2001.  She approached our office for help in December 2011 to reopen her case.  We found out that our client was married to a U.S. citizen and that she had been issued an I-94 when she first entered the U.S.  She was permitted to enter the U.S. in order to apply for asylum.  She fell into a special category of individuals called arriving aliens who are physically present in the U.S. but who are not considered to be admitted to the U.S.  According to Immigration regulations, USCIS has jurisdiction to make a decision on a green card application of an arriving alien even if that person has a final order. 

We found out that her former attorney filed a green card application on her behalf but it had been denied for unknown reasons.  We refiled the green card application with all of the proper documentation and appeared for the interview with our client.  We explained how our client was eligible for a green card even though she had a final order, and we provided evidence to show that our client was in a good marriage.  The I-130 Petition regarding the bona fides of the marriage was immediately approved the following day.  The I-485 Application was approved a few months later on September 13, 2012.   We next filed a motion to reopen and terminate her proceedings on September 28, 2012 with the Board of Immigration Appeals.  The Board granted our motion and terminated our client's case.  Our client now has legal status after 12 years.

Case Reopened for Client with Final Order to Apply for Green Card
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Our client from China had a final order from June 2001 and came to our office in October 2011 to see if he could reopen his case and apply for a green card.  

Our client entered the U.S. without inspection over the California/Mexico border in May 1993.  He applied for asylum, but the case was denied and referred to the Immigration Court.  The Immigration Judge denied the asylum application and granted voluntary departure until December 13, 1999. Our client then paid his former attorney to file an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).  Our client's former attorney, however, only filed a notice of appeal and never filed a brief with legal arguments so the appeal was denied.  The BIA extended his voluntary departure period until June 13, 2001.

Our client did not find out the appeal had been denied until summer 2004.  Our client's former attorney helped our client file an I-130 petition based on his marriage to his U.S. citizen wife in June 2002, but she never informed our client that his appeal had been denied.  A second attorney helped our client file an application for labor certification in April 2001 which was later approved in May 2007.  Our client then hired an immigration service agency in New York to look into the status of his case and found out his appeal had been denied.  After he found out about his appeal our client retained a third attorney who filed a request to Join in a Motion to Reopen with the Office of Chief Counsel in Chicago in 2005.  The motion was denied.  Our client's third attorney filed a Request to Reconsider the Joint Motion which was also denied.  Our client's third attorney did not try to file a Motion to Reopen based on his first attorney's ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Our client then retained a fourth attorney who filed a Motion to Reopen in order to file a successive asylum application based on the birth of his second child and the persecution he would encounter if he returned to China for breaking the one-child policy.  The BIA denied the motion citing that the motion was untimely filed and noting that our client failed to file an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.  Our client's fourth attorney filed an appeal of the decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal was also dismissed. 

Our client was then arrested and detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in August 2005.  Our client was detained for more than 100 days and then eventually released and placed on an order of supervision as a condition of release from ICE custody because ICE could not obtain a travel document to China for our client.

Our client retained a fifth attorney who filed a second Motion to Reopen alleging that our client was eligible to file his green card application. The BIA denied the motion stating that the motion was time and number-barred.  Our client's fifth attorney filed a Motion to Reconsider which was also denied.  Our client's fifth attorney then filed an appeal of the decision to the U.S. Circuit Court which was dismissed.

Our client then retained a sixth attorney who filed a green card application for our client along with a waiver of inadmissibility directly to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) without trying to even reopen the case with the Immigration Court first.  The applications remain pending.

Our client then came to our office in October 2011.  We were the seventh attorney representing our client.  We reviewed the file and case history of our client and decided to file a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen with the Office of Chief Counsel in Chicago.  We explained that our client was now eligible for a new form of relief unavailable at his first hearing in 1999. Our client was married to a U.S. citizen and had an approved I-130 Petition.  Although he entered the U.S. illegally, he was still eligible to file a green card application because he met an exception to the law since he was the beneficiary of a labor certification filed before April 2001.  We explained the long procedural history of our client and included evidence that our client's first attorney had been suspended.  We also described the significant equities our client had and explained why the case warranted a favorable exercise of discretion and should be reopened.  We communicated with the Office of Chief Counsel and spoke several times with the government attorney handling the case.  The attorney agreed to join us in reopening the case. We then filed a Joint Motion to Reopen with the BIA on May 7, 2012, and the BIA reopened the case on June 14, 2012!  Our client was then scheduled for a hearing in the Immigration Court. We again contacted the government attorney who assisted us with the case and requested that they join us in terminating the case with the Immigration Court.  The government attorney agreed, and we made a joint oral request in court to terminate the hearing.  We appeared by telephone, and the Immigration Judge granted our request on August 13, 2012.  Then, four days later, we filed the green card application with all supporting documents on August 17, 2012.  We are now waiting for a green card interview to be scheduled.

It has been more than 19 years since our client entered the U.S. and our client has been through six previous attorneys, two dismissed circuit court appeals, five denied motions, and more than 100 days in jail and now he is finally getting his chance to apply to be a lawful permanent resident.

Client who had Final Order Receives Green Card After More Than 18 Years in the U.S.
Location: Northport, Alabama

Our client's journey of getting his green card took more than 18 years in the making. He came illegally using a fake passport into the U.S. in December 1993. He applied for asylum with the asylum office, and his case was denied and sent to Immigration Court.  The Immigration Judge ordered him deported because he missed his hearing.  Our client had never been informed by his former attorney about the hearing date and did not know he was scheduled for a hearing.  The Judge ordered him deported in 1999. 

Our client went to several attorneys for help with his case, but none of them helped him to reopen his case.  He was finally arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers in 2010. He was detained and was scheduled to be sent back to China.

Our client's family contacted us for help in 2010. We first filed an I-130 Petition based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. Then, we filed a motion to reopen his case with the Immigration Court.  While the motion was pending, ICE mistakenly tried to remove (i.e., deport) our client.  We made emergency calls and stopped our client's removal showing ICE that they could not remove our client while his motion was pending.  The plane was stopped on the runway, and our client was sent back to jail.

The motion to reopen was granted, and our  I-130 Petition was approved despite a very confrontational I-130 interview.  We then filed a motion to terminate with the Immigration Court so that we could file his green card application with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).  The court granted our motion, and our client no longer had to appear in Court.

We filed the green card application with USCIS along with an I-601 hardship waiver.  Our client faced two major problems with his green card application.  First, he had to prove that he had actually been inspected and admitted into the U.S. or else he would not be eligible for a green card and would have to leave the country to apply for an immigrant visa instead.  Our client had given his passport that he used to enter the U.S. to the smugglers that helped bring him into the country so we had no solid evidence of his entry. He also did not have any plane tickets.  We had to rely on the sworn statements of himself, his parents, and his uncle as proof that he was actually inspected and admitted into the U.S. Second, he had to prove that he was eligible for a waiver because we were arguing he had used a fake passport to enter the U.S.  Fraud is a ground that makes a person ineligible for a green card, but Congress has allowed for a waiver of that ground as long as there is proof that his U.S. citizen spouse would face extreme hardship upon his removal from the U.S.  This hardship has to be above and beyond what is normally expected when a family is forced to live apart from each other.

We appeared for the green card interview with our client, and we were informed that the standard for approval of the waiver was very high.  However, after the interview, both the waiver application and the green card applications were approved.  We had successfully proved that our client's wife would face extreme hardship and that our client had been inspected and admitted into the U.S.

In May 2012, more than 18 years after entering the U.S. our client finally had legal status and had his green card.  He can now live in this country with his wife and children without the fear of deportation and will be able to apply for U.S. citizenshp in three years.  His struggle for freedom has finally ended.

Removal Court Cases Administratively Closed and Clients Permitted to Remain in the U.S.
Location: North Carolina

Our client approached our office for help to reopen his wife's final order in March 2010.  Our client and his wife had been placed into removal proceedings because their former attorney filed green card applications for both our client and his wife even though they were ineligible.  Our client paid a significant legal fee in order to obtain their green cards but then found out they were ineligible because they had been in the U.S. illegally for a period of more than six months.  They were not in valid immigration status when the applications were filed, and consequently, the green card applications were denied in January 2009.  Our client and his wife were issued a Notice to Appear in Immigration Court in March 2009.  Our client's wife was issued a hearing notice, but our client was not issued a hearing notice.  Our client's wife ended up with a final order because of her failure to appear in Court.  (See story below). 

Our office was retained to help reopen the case.  We filed a motion to reopen his wife's case arguing that she missed her case due to exceptional circumstances.  It was denied by the Immigration Court.  Then, we filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the Board sustained the appeal in June 2011. The case was sent back to Immigration Court in Cleveland, Ohio for a hearing. 

During this period, our client was also issued a hearing notice. Our client and his wife were scheduled for a hearing in Cleveland, Ohio on separate dates at the end of 2011.  Before they were notified of their hearing date, our client and his wife moved to North Carolina to help their friend run his business.  Once they found out about the new hearing date, our client requested that our office move their immigration cases to the Immigration Court in North Carolina. 

We first filed a motion to consolidate the two cases so that the client and his wife could appear in court together. The motion was granted.  We then filed a motion to change venue to North Carolina which was denied.  We renewed our motion to change venue, pleading to the facutal allegations and charge of removability.  Our motion was opposed by the Office of Chief Counsel, but the Immigration Court granted our second request.

Our client and his wife were scheduled for a new hearing at the Charlotte Immigration Court on March 15, 2012.  Our clients did not want to leave the U.S. to go back to Korea.  We decided to file a request with the Office of Chief Counsel in North Carolina requesting that our clients' case be administratively closed pursuant to a memorandum issued in June 2011 by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton regarding the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.  Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against an individual. This memorandum provided guidance to ICE personnel regarding which removal cases to consider lower priority cases.  We provided evidence that our clients were not a threat to national security, had no prior record of criminal history or immigration violations, economically benefitted their community, and were worthy candidates for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. We filed the request on February 24, 2012, and the Office of Chief Counsel agreed to administratively close the case, pending security checks, on March 12, 2012 several days prior to their hearing. 

The Office of Chief Counsel had to conduct background checks but did not oppose a continuance of the hearing date until the security checks were completed.  We filed a motion for a continuance with the Court, and it was granted.  A new hearing was scheduled for May 24, 2012. We filed another continuance based on pending security checks, and the continuance was granted.  A third hearing was scheduled for July 19, 2012.  Our clients' security checks eventually cleared, and the Office of Chief Counsel filed a joint motion requesting administrative closure with the Court.  The Court granted the request to administratively close the case on June 6, 2012.  After a three-year struggle with their immigration case, our client and his wife can now remain in the U.S.

Client who had Final Order Receives Green Card After More Than 20 Years in the U.S.
Location: Hartford, Connecticut

Our client from China entered the United States when she was 17, over 20 years ago. She was arrested after she snuck over the Mexican border into the U.S.  She applied for asylum, and her case was denied by the Immigration Judge in New York in 1995. She appealed her case to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and her case was dismissed in June 1996. Our client was granted voluntary departure. She did not leave however by the designated time, and her grant of voluntary departure became a final deportation order.

Our client did not know that her appeal had been dismissed.  She was married to a lawful permanent resident and had two children with him.  Her husband applied for his green card, and his lawyer also applied for a green card for our client based on her husband's case.  Our client's husband's lawyer, however, did not try to reopen her deportation case first.  Her green card case was denied in 1999 because of her final deportation order.  Afterwards, she tried to retain several attorneys to handle her case. She paid a legal fee, but nothing was done on her case.

Our client came to our office for help in May 2010.  We requested a copy of her entire alien file in May 2010. We received the entire file in July 2010.  In August 2010, we filed a request with the Office of Chief Counsel in New York to join us in reopening the case to allow her to apply for a green card.  The Office of Chief Counsel finally agreed to our request in September 2011.  We filed a Joint Motion to Reopen with the BIA in October 2011, and the BIA reopened the case in November 2011. The case was sent back to the New York Immigration Court, and after speaking with the Office of Chief Counsel, they agreed to file a Joint Motion to Terminate the case with the Immigration Court. The Immigration Judge terminated the case in February 2012.  This was the same judge who had denied her case 16 years ago.

We filed her green card application with USCIS in February 2012, and she was scheduled for an interview on May 22, 2012.  We prepared our client for the interview and instructed her as to the proper documents to bring.  Our case was approved the same day, and she is now registered as a permanent resident.  After being illegal for more than 20 years, our client finally has legal status as a permanent resident. 

Case Terminated and Client Can File Green Card with USCIS
Location:

Our client from China entered the United States in January 1992 when she was only 17. She applied for asylum, and the Immigration Judge denied her case in November 1995. She was granted voluntary departure until December 1995. She filed an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which was dismissed in June 1996. The BIA extended her voluntary departure date until July 1996. Our client was not informed about the denial of the appeal until several months after her case was denied.  Our client did not leave, and her grant of voluntary departure turned into a final order.

 

Our client married a U.S. citizen and had two children.  We filed a request to the Office of Chief Counsel to join us in reopening her case in August 2010.  They agreed in September 2011, and we filed a joint motion to reopen with the BIA on October 20, 2011 to reopen her case.  The motion was granted on November 15, 2011, and her case was sent back to the Immigratoin Court for a new hearing on her case. 

  

Our client was scheduled for a hearing with the New York Immigration Court on February 15, 2012.  We immediately filed a motion to terminate with the New York Immigration Court.  We followed up with the Judge's clerk to check on the status of the motion and was informed that the Judge would not rule on the case unless the Office of Chief Counsel also agreed with the request to terminate the case.  We followed up with the Office of Chief Counsel and spoke with the attorney handling the case.  We asked if she would join us in terminating the case, and she agreed to our request.  She filed a joint motion with the Court to terminate the case.  The Immigration Judge granted the motion to terminate the case on February 8, 2012.  This is the same judge who denied her asylum case 16 years ago.  Now, our client can apply for her green card with USCIS.

 

I-130 Petition Approved After Two Previous Denials (Filed by Client and Former Attorney)
Location: Illinois

Our client is from Nigeria and is married to a U.S. citizen. He first applied for a green card based on the marriage to his wife in May 2009.  He filed the I-130 Petition (marriage-based petition) and I-485 application (green card application) on his own without the help of an attorney. At the interview, the interviewing officer insisted that the marriage was not bona fide.  After feeling pressure from the interviewing officer, the wife withdrew the I-130 Petition.  Realizing the consequences of what she had done, she immediately went to USCIS to undo the withdrawal the next day.  The green card application was nevertheless denied.

 

After the case was denied, our client sought out the help of an attorney and filed a 2nd green card application in October 2009.  After the interview, a Notice of Intent to Deny the I-130 Petition was issued alleging that our clients entered into the marriage only for immigration purposes.  The interviewing officer pointed to the lack of evidence of joint documents and other alleged discrepancies from their public record.  Our client's former attorney did not help them to address the issues in the Notice of Intent to Deny, and our client had to file the response on his own.  The I-130 Petition and green card application were denied.

 

Our client was then put into removal proceedings and was scheduled to appear for his first court hearing in summer 2011.  He approached our office for help in April 2010.  We prepared an extensive I-130 Petition with more than 150 pages demonstrating that our client and his wife were indeed in a good marriage and filed the petition in May 2010.  (We could not refile the green card application until there was a decision on the I-130 Petition because only USCIS has jurisdiction over I-130 Petitions.)  The I-130 Petition was pending at the time of our client's first hearing, and we asked the Immigration Judge for a continuance until USCIS made a decision on the I-130 Petition.  We submitted a copy of the I-130 Petition we had filed with USCIS.  Although, the I-130 Petition had been denied twice before, the Immigration Judge granted our request.

 

An interview was scheduled in November 2011 on the third I-130 Petition.  We accompanied our client to the interview.  After the interview we filed more evidence accumulated after the interview in order to demonstrate that our client and his wife were in a bona fide marriage.

 

The I-130 Petition was finally approved in January 2012 after two failed attempts by our client and his former attorney.  We can now apply for his green card application with the Immigration Court.

 

Case Reopened by BIA for Client with Final Order to Apply for Green Card
Location:

Our client from China entered the United States in January 1992 when she was only 17.  She was apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border and was detained.  She was released on bond and was placed in deportation proceedings.  She applied for asylum, and the Immigration Judge denied her case in November 1995.  She was granted voluntary departure until December 1995.  Our client's former attorney filed an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which was dismissed in June 1996.  The BIA extended her voluntary departure date until July 1996. Our client was not informed about the denial of the appeal until several months later.

 

Our client married a U.S. citizen and had two children. She approached our office for help to reopen her case.  We filed a request to the Office of Chief Counsel with the Department of Homeland Security to join us in reopening the case in August 2010.  We contacted the DHS attorney's office various times to check up on the case.  We received email notification on September 27, 2011 that they agreed to join us in reopening the case. 

 

We filed a joint motion to reopen with the BIA to reopen her case so that she could apply for a green card on October 24, 2011. Three weeks later the case was reopened on November 15, 2011.  Our client has now been scheduled for a new hearing on her case so that she can apply for a green card. 

Client's Final Order Terminated for Arriving Alien
Location: Michigan

Our client in China had a final order and was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  He spent 9 months in jail before he was released because travel documents to China could not be obtained for him.  He started reporting to ICE on an order of supervision.  He was married to a lawful permanent resident, and his wife had filed an I-130 Petition on her husband's behalf with the help of their former attorney in August 2009.  Our client began to look for new representation because of difficulties in contacting his former attorney's office.  He approached our office in October 2010 for help with his case.  (See story below).  We assisted our client with his I-130 paperwork and interview, and the I-130 Petition was approved on February 13, 2011.   

Our client's wife became a naturalized citizen, and her husband was now eligible to file his green card right away as an immediate relative.  We next filed the green card application the following month in March 2011 explaining that our client was eligible to file for a green card irrespective of his final order.  Our client was scheduled for an interview on September 12, 2011, and his application was approved the same day. 

We filed a Motion to Reopen and Terminate his final order with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) on September 27, 2011.  One month later on October 31, 2011, the BIA reopened his case and terminated all court proceedings.  We also helped our client retrieve his bond money. 

Our client has no final order and can live in the U.S. as a permanent resident with his wife and children.  He has been in the U.S. since 1995 and has been struggling for the last 16 years with his immigration status.  He spent 9 long months in jail anticipating that he will be sent back to China to be separated from his family for at least 10 years.  Now, he can live securely in the U.S. with his family and apply for U.S. citizenship in the future.

Case Terminated and Client Can File Green Card with USCIS
Location: Alabama

Our client from China had a final order because he did not appear for his last court hearing and was detained by Immigration and Customs Inforcement.  We filed a motion to reopen his case which was granted, and our client was released. (See success story below).  Our client was now in removal proceedings in the Immigration Court.  Our client is married to a U.S. citizen, and we filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative based on his marriage which was approved.  We filed a Motion to Terminate his proceedings in the Immigration Court in October 2011 which was granted.  Now, our client can file his green card application with the local USCIS office.

Request to Join in Motion to Reopen Approved for Client with Final Order
Location:

Our client from China entered the United States in January 1992.  She was only 17 when she first entered the U.S.  She was apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border and was detained.  She was released on bond and was placed in deportation proceedings.  She applied for asylum, and the Immigration Judge denied her case in November 1995.  She was granted voluntary departure until December 1995.  Our client's former attorney filed an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which was dismissed in June 1996.  The BIA extended her voluntary departure date until July 1996. Our client was not informed about the denial of the appeal until several months later. 

Our client married her boyfriend of four years.  Her former attorney helped her husband file an I-140 Petition for Alien Worker and I-485 Application for a green card.  They also applied for a green card for our client as a derivative spouse, but her former attorney did not tell her that she was not eligible for a green card because of her final order.  Her husband's case was approved, but her case was denied.  Her former attorney next filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative for her.  The I-130 Petition was approved, but the former attorney did not try to reopen her immigration case.  Instead, the staff members of the attorney's office told her that nothing could be done with her case.

Our client approached our office for help.  We reviewed her court records and filed a request to the Office of Chief Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security to join us in reopening the case in August 2010.  We provided documents detailing her significant equities and family ties in the U.S.  We also explained that our client was not barred from applying for overstaying her voluntary departure order because more than five years had lapsed since the BIA had dismissed the appeal.  We provided evidence to show that our client was eligible to apply for a green card if her case was reopened and that this was a meriotorious case worthy of reopening.

We contacted the DHS attorney's office various times to check up on the case.  We received email notification on September 27, 2011 that they agreed to join us in reopening the case.  We can now file a joint motion to reopen with the BIA to reopen our client's case so that she can file for a green card!

Case Reopened for Client with Final Order to Apply for Green Card
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client filed for asylum before the Immigration Judge which was denied in 2007.  The Immigration Judge, however, granted withholding of removal finding that the applicant's life or freedom would be threatened upon his return to his home country.  A grant of withholding of removal allows him to stay in the U.S. but, unlike asylum, does not result in permanent residence (or a green card).  

Our client later married a U.S. citizen, and his wife filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative on his behalf to USCIS.  They also filed his I-485 green card application at the same time.  The I-130 Petition was approved (showing that USCIS found the marriage to be genuine), but the I-485 application was denied because our client had a final order.  Even though our client's removal was prevented or deferred, he was still categorized as having a final order.  

Our client came to our office to help him reopen his case.  Our client missed all the deadlines of filing a timely motion to reopen according to Immigration regulations.  We, therefore, filed a motion to reopen sua sponte November 23, 2010 asking the court to reopen the case based on its own authority to reopen a case at any time under exceptional circumstances.  We asked the court to exercise its sua sponte authority in this given situation because our client was now eligible for a form of relief not available at his previous hearing. The motion to reopen was granted on September 16, 2011, and now our client can try to file for his green card.

Green Card Approved for Arriving Alien with Final Order Based on Marriage to U.S. Citizen
Location: Michigan

Our client in China had a final order and was reporting to ICE on an order of supervision.  He was married to a lawful permanent resident, and his wife filed an I-130 Petition on her husband's behalf with the help of their former attorney in August 2009.  Our client began to look for new representation because of difficulties in contacting his former attorney's office.  He approached our office in October 2010 for help with his case.  We requested a copy of his immigration papers and found that he had a final order of exclusion and was paroled into the United States.  Because our client had a final order of exclusion, he was eligible to file for a green card with USCIS irrespective of his final order issued by the court.  He had to wait until his wife became a U.S. citizen and the I-130 petition was approved.  We filed an application for work authorization based on his order of supervision which was approved.  His wife's naturalization application was approved.  We received an interview notice for his I-130 petition.  We prepared our clients for the interview, advising them of the documents they should bring.  We also prepared supplemental documents in support of the I-130 Petition along with updated forms.   We attended the I-130 interview with our clients on February 12, 2011, and the I-130 Petition was approved the next day.

We next filed the green card application the following month in March explaining that our client was eligible to file for a green card irrespective of his final order.  Our client had been arrested once and convicted of a misdemeanor, but he did not know when or where the conviction was issued.  We did an FBI fingerprint check and tracked down the court where his criminal proceedings took place.  We were able to get a certified copy of his criminal record and argued that the conviction did not render him ineligible because it fell under the petty offense exception since the maximum penalty possible for the crime was less than one year of imprisonment.  

Our client was scheduled for an interview on September 12, 2011, and his application was approved the same day.  Now, we can file a motion to reopen his final order and terminate proceedings.  Our client has been in the U.S. since 1995 and has struggled for the last 16 years to obtain legal status.  He is now one step closer to securing his legal status in the U.S. and remain here permanently with his family.

Case Reopened for Client who was Ordered Removed for Faliure to Appear in Court
Location: Ohio

A Korean woman from Ohio was placed in removal proceedings after her green card application was denied. She received a hearing notice in the mail and contacted the attorney who had filed her green card application to ask for help.  She could not retain their services because she could not afford their legal fees.  The woman appeared in court in Detroit, Michigan without an attorney.  The Immigration Judge transferred the case to Cleveland, Ohio because her new home address was in Ohio.  The Immigration Judge told her that she would receive her  hearing notice in the mail.  She received the hearing notice in the mail and appeared in court in Cleveland.  She could not find an attorney to represent her in court by the date of the hearing and went alone to the hearing. 

 

The woman was very nervous and anxious appearing by herself at the hearing.  At the hearing the Immigration Judge gave her time to find an attorney and told her she must appear at the next hearing with an attorney.  A hearing notice was handed to her in court notifying her of her next hearing date.

 

The woman did not fully understand everything that was going on in court on that day and did not realize that the paper handed to her in court was a hearing notice.  She thought she would be getting another notice in the mail like she did for her previous two hearings.  She missed the hearing date and received a court order of removal in the mail.  She took the order to an attorney to translate the document and found out that she had been issued a final order and would have to leave for Korea.  She was shocked and did not know what she could do.  She came to us for help.

 

We filed the motion to reopen on her case with the Immigration Court in Cleveland, OH arguing that her failure to appear was due to exceptional circumstances.  The Immigration Judge denied the case noting that our client was given oral notice of her hearing date and was personally given written notice.  We then filed an appeal of the denial with the Board of Immigration Appeals, arguing that our client’s failure to appear did rise to the level of exceptional circumstances because she was not represented by an attorney at the time and was under the reasonable impression that she would receive a hearing notice in the mail.  The BIA sustained the appeal noting that while misunderstandings or miscommunications regarding hearing dates have generally been determined in other cases not to constitute exceptional circumstances that upon the consideration of the totality of the circumstances our client’s case was indeed distinguishable from those cases.  We won the appeal and our client no longer has a final order. Her case now has been sent back to the Immigration Court for a new hearing.

I-130 Petition Approved for Client with Final Order based on Marriage to U.S. Citizen
Location: Alabama

Our client from China had a final order because he did not appear for his last court hearing and was detained by Immigration and Customs Inforcement.  We filed a motion to reopen his case which was granted, and our client was released. (See success story below). 

Our client was married to a U.S. citizen, and we filed an I-130 Petition for alien relative in February 2010.  This was our client's first marriage, and his spouse's second marriage.  We waited for an interview to be scheduled and sent several inquiries to the field office in Atlanta to check on an interview date.  The interview was finally scheduled for March 7, 2011.  We prepared our client for the interview and instructed him as to the documents he should bring to demonstrate his marriage was bona fide.  We accompanied him to the interview in Atlanta.  At the end of the interview, the adjudicating officer indicated that she needed more time to review the file. The case was approved a little more than two weeks later.   Now our client can request for his case to be terminated in the court and file an application for a green card.

Case Reopened to Apply for Asylum Based on Changed Country Conditions & Removal Stopped
Location: Michigan

Our client entered the United States fleeing from the Kyrgyz government.  With the help of her former attorney she filed for asylum, but her case was denied by the Immigration Judge in 2008.  She filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in 2010.  She was asked to report to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office after her appeal was dismissed.  She came to our office for help and asked that we represent her.

We filed a motion to reopen our client's case based on changed country conditions in Kyrgyzstan and filed a motion to stay removal.  Our client started reporting on an order of supervision to the local ICE office in October.  Our client was initially scheduled to appear for her next reporting date in the beginning of next year.  but, she suddenly received a call from ICE that travel documents had been obtained and she was scheduled to be sent back to her home country in less than two weeks.  We immediately contacted the BIA and filed a motion to expedite the case.  Our client was detained several days before her scheduled departure date.  We notified the BIA about our client's situation, and the BIA granted our stay of removal.  Our client was not deported as scheduled.  Then, one week later, our motion to reopen was granted.  Our client will no longer be deported, and her case will be sent back to the Immigration Judge for a new hearing.

Case Reopened for Client with Final Order Based on Failure to Appear in Court & Removal Stopped
Location: Alabama

Our client from China had an outstanding final order from 1999 and was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) this year. Their family members called our office for help. Our client had a valid passport, and our client was scheduled to be sent to China in a matter of weeks. We talked to the ICE officer handling our client's case to request a stay of deportation which was denied. But, we found out that our client had a final order because he missed his last hearing. We immediately contacted the Immigration Court that last heard our client's case and requested a copy of his court records and tape of his hearing. We received the documents but not the tape and filed a motion to reopen the final order. Our client was never informed about his hearing date by his former attorney. This kind of motion immediately stops deportation until an Immigration Judge makes a decision on the case. Our client remained in jail but could not be deported.

One Sunday night his family members frantically called us to inform us that our client was going to be deported the next day despite the fact that there was a stay of deportation. Our office called the jail that night to stop deportation. The jail officers informed us that there was nothing that they could do and to call ICE the next morning. We called ICE as soon as it opened and demanded that deportation be stopped immediately. Our client was headed to China, and the airlines stopped the plane before it was about to take off to get our client off the plane. Our client was safely sent back to jail.

We received the tape of the hearing and found even stronger evidence in support of our motion. We filed supplemental documents in support of our motion. The Immigration Judge granted the motion and reopened our case. Our client is released and now with his family. He is now going to have his day in court more than 10 years later!


twitter-bg
Deborah Lee, Esq.
1350 W. 5th Ave., Ste. 314
Columbus, OH 43212

Phone: 614-725-5804
Fax: 614-725-5805


twitter-bg
Mon. - Fri.: 9 a.m. - 6 p.m.
Evening by Appointments Only
View Map