CASE: Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Cameroonian
LOCATION: Memphis, TN

Our client came to the United States from Cameroon without inspection in July 2001. Within a year of his entry, he filed an I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal in March 2002 to the USCIS.  He was interviewed in April 2002, and his application was subsequently referred to the Memphis Immigration Court in May 2002.  His removal proceedings were continued, but he could not appear at his individual hearing in April 2003 due to being hospitalized. Thus, the Court found him removable and ordered him removed in absentia.

Later, in April 2011, he filed a Motion to Reopen with the assistance of his previous immigration counsel.  However, this Motion to Reopen was denied by the Court in July 2011.  Thereafter, he contacted our office to determine whether he can file a Motion to Reopen again. We explained to him that the only way the Court can reopen his case is based on changed country conditions in Cameroon. Otherwise, our client’s second Motion to Reopen will be considered untimely filed and numerically barred. Our client decided to retain our office on November 22, 2011 for a Motion to Reopen based on changes in country conditions under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i).

We prepared the brief and helped our client with the supporting documents and on March 6, 2012, our office filed a fifteen-page Motion to Reopen with the Memphis Immigration Court, together with a total of 24 exhibits. We included a detailed affidavit regarding his involvement in a political activist group in Cameroon, and several affidavits from his fellow members who confirmed his involvement with the organization.  We claimed that the number of arrests and detentions of his political group have recently escalated since his original removal hearing in 2003 resulting in changed country conditions.  We also attached a letter from a human rights officer in which he stated that he knew about our client’s political involvement in Cameroon. Other supporting documents such as newspaper articles and a recent country report from Cameroon were submitted (24 exhibits).  On March 29, 2012, the DHS filed a Response in Opposition to our Motion.  Nevertheless, on May 2, 2012, the Memphis Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case.  Our client now does not have a final order of removal and will proceed to seek asylum relief with the Immigration Court.

For other Motion to Reopen success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition
CLIENT: Ghanaian
LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio (EOIR) / Columbus, Ohio (USCIS)

Our client is a Ghanaian citizen who came to the U.S. on an F-1 Student Visa in August 2003 to study at a college in West Virginia.  He married his ex-wife, a U.S. Citizen, in 2007, but their marriage ended in 2011.  At the latter stage of his previous marriage, his ex-wife, a U.S. Citizen, filed an I-130 for him, but later withdrew the petition as their marriage did not work out well.  The I-130 petition was denied and after the denial, a Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceeding.

Our client got divorced to his first wife and then married his second U.S. Citizen wife in August 2011. He retained our office on August 29, 2011. Our office prepared and filed an I-130 Petition with bona fide marriage evidence of his two marriages on September 2, 2011. The petition also included a bona fide marriage exception letter. While the I-130 petition was pending, our client appeared at the Cleveland Immigration Court on October 19, 2011 for his initial master calendar hearing.  Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office represented him at the hearing, did pleadings and sought adjustment of status relief upon approval of the I-130 petition.

Our client’s I-130 interview was scheduled on March 26, 2012 at the Columbus USCIS Field Office.  Prior to the interview, our office thoroughly prepared our client and his wife for the interview. Attorney Yu also accompanied them at their interview. The interview lasted one hour, our clients were separated, but the I-130 petition was eventually approved on the same day.

After the I-130 was approved, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to Terminate proceedings with an attached I-485 application and its supporting documents. The DHS counsel in Cleveland agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice. He’s not in proceedings anymore. Now, he can file his I-485 adjustment of status application to the USCIS and eventually obtain his green card.

For other termination success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Ghanaian
LOCATION: Phoenix, AZ / Immigration Court: Arlington, VA

Our client came to the United States on a valid B-2 visa from Ghana in 2004 to visit his aunt in Maryland. Later, he decided to stay in the United States, and did not leave. He worked illegally, and on June 2004, our client got picked up at work by immigration officers and was issued a Notice to Appear.

The Notice to Appear did not have a hearing date and time. He was told he would get a hearing notice in the mail. He never moved for the next two years, yet he never received any hearing notice in the mail. Thus, he never got notice of his hearing. Our client thought that the immigration court just closed his case due to his young age at that time.

More than three years later, he married his U.S. Citizen wife and moved to Arizona. They have a U.S. citizen child as well.

He contacted our firm to inquire about the possibilities of applying for adjustment of status. Upon checking his documents, we found out that he had a final order in 2005. He said he was not aware that he had a hearing date in March 2005. He explained that he got a Notice to Appear, was expecting a hearing notice, lived at the address that was on the Notice to Appear for the next two years, yet never received anything. Because of his absence at the Arlington Immigration Court hearing, the court issued an in absentia order of removal in 2005.  We told him that we have to reopen his case first before he can even apply for adjustment of status.

To rescind the final order, he has to get his case reopened. This is done through a Motion to Reopen filed with the Immigration Judge who gave the final order.  Based on this Motion to Reopen, the Immigration Judge can rescind the in absentia order of removal if you are able to show that you did not receive notice of the hearing.

On March 9, 2012, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Arlington Immigration Court. Documentation of his address at the date of the final order, a detailed affidavit regarding his addresses and his circumstances around the final order date, documentation of the last address he provided to the immigration service prior to the final order date, and other supporting documents were submitted (26 exhibits). On April 11, 2012, the Arlington Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case.  Our client now does not have the final order of removal and may seek adjustment of status relief with the Immigration Court upon approval of the I-130 marriage-based petition that was filed for him. He may also seek termination of removal proceedings and apply for adjustment of status with the CIS instead.

For other Motion to Reopen success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }

Case: TPS Extension
Client: Honduran
Location: Michigan

The Secretary of Homeland Security may designate a foreign country for Temporary Protected Status due to conditions in the country that temporarily prevent the country’s nationals from returning safely, or in certain circumstances, where the country is unable to handle the return of its nationals adequately.  USCIS may grant TPS to eligible nationals of certain countries (or parts of countries), who are already in the United States.  Eligible individuals without nationality who last resided in the designated country may also be granted TPS. The Secretary may designate a country for TPS due to the following temporary conditions in the country: 1) Ongoing armed conflict (such as civil war); 2) An environmental disaster (such as earthquake or hurricane), or 3) an epidemic other extraordinary and temporary conditions.  During a designated period, individuals who are TPS beneficiaries or who are found preliminarily eligible for TPS upon initial review of their cases (prima facie eligible):

• Are not removable from the United States
• Can obtain an employment authorization document (EAD)
• May be granted for travel authorization

Once granted TPS, an individual also cannot be detained by DHS on the basis of his or her immigration status in the United States.

Our client first entered the United States in 1996 and has resided in the U.S. ever since. He had obtained TPS and work permits for a long time.  He contacted our office in December 2011 for his TPS re-registration and work permit. He previously tried to re-register the TPS, but it was denied due to his criminal record. He has not had a work permit for over 2 years. Our client retained us on January 3, 2012.  On January 4, 2012, our office filed his TPS Application and Work Permit with a brief regarding his eligibility.  We explained that our client has continued residence in the United States and continued physical presence since 1999. On March 23, 2012, the USCIS approved his TPS and issued a valid work permit for our client.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Bond Redetermination Hearing
APPLICANT: Chinese
LOCATION: Florence Immigration Court, AZ

Our office was contacted in early March regarding a Chinese individual detained in Florence, Arizona. He tried to enter the United States without valid documents and was incarcerated by immigration officers.

Prior to retention, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement already set a very high bond amount.  Our client wished to have that reduced so we filed a motion for bond redetermination with the Florence Immigration Court in Arizona.  Our office communicated with him and his U.S. resident relative in Pennsylvania, and gathered as much information regarding his relief, equities, criminal record, family ties, and financial ability to post bond.  We also gathered supporting documents from his relative, from proof of their status and residence, to bank statements and tax returns.

On April 6, 2012, Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu represented our client in his Florence Arizona Immigration Court bond re-determination hearing. The DHS proposed a bond but it was too high. During the bond re-determination hearing, we explained to the Court that our client already passed his credible fear interview, was not a flight risk, had established his residence upon release, had established his financial ability to post bond, and had ample family ties in the United States who submitted proof of their residence and immigration status.  Moreover, our office explained that his lack of criminal records, designated address with contact information from his relative in the United States, ability to post bond, and eligibility for asylum relief clearly demonstrate that the bond should be reduced.  At the end of the hearing, the Immigration Judge took our arguments into account and reduced the bond amount by one third of the original amount.

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

For other jail case success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Asylum in Immigration Court
CLIENT: Russian
LOCATION: New York Immigration Court

Our Russian client came to the United States on a J-1 visa in June 2009.  She was persecuted in Russia based on her ethnicity, so within one year of her entry, she filed an asylum application (Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and relief under the CAT) to the USCIS.  She was interviewed at the Asylum Office in New York, but her case was referred to an immigration judge in June 2010.  The Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceedings.  The USCIS thought that our client’s testimony was different from that of her written statement.

After the case was referred to the Immigration Court, our client contacted our office in late January of 2011. We met her in New York City for the consultation. She then retained our office on February 4, 2011.

Our client was scared to go back home to Russia, fearing that she will be persecuted based on her ethnicity. Our client lived in Russia with her mother, however, her mother was attacked by racial extremists and she was severely injured by the attack.  Later in 2008, our client was severely attacked by a group of skinheads based on her ethnicity. As a result of this attack, she had rib fractures and a concussion. The Russian police did not fully investigate the incident and could not arrest any attackers.

We helped her prepare her asylum application and represented her in immigration court hearings. We also asked her to provide supporting documents corroborating her claim, some of which were a letter from her mother and friends in Russia, Russian medical documents of our client and her mother, and her membership certification with the anti-fascist front. Our firm also did some research on articles related to her claim, and the type of persecution she will experience in Russia if sent back.

Our client’s individual hearing was scheduled on August 11, 2011 at the New York Immigration Court. Attorney Sung Hee Yu represented our client at the hearing. During the hearing, our client testified credibly as to her past persecution in Russia and likelihood of future persecution. After the hearing, the Immigration Judge requested us to submit a new X-ray and psychiatry report from U.S. doctors. The court also requested our client’s doctor to testify at the hearing. On April 5, 2012, after the doctor’s expert testimony, the Immigration Judge granted asylum relief for our client. She is now an asylee who will get her work permit in two weeks and will be eligible to apply for permanent residency in one year.

For other asylum success stories, please click here.

For other deportation case success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }

Case: Termination of Proceedings / Adjustment of Status
Nationality: Chinese
Location: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in January 2002 with a valid B-1 visa. He has stayed in the United States ever since. He was placed in removal proceedings a few years later. While he was in the United States, his wife, who was a permanent resident, filed an I-130 petition for him. It was approved in June 2010. At the time of the I-130 filing, our client’s wife was a lawful permanent resident, so the priority date for our client was not current. She became a naturalized U.S. citizen on June 17, 2011.

Before our firm was retained, our client already had a scheduled asylum individual hearing in 2013. In August 2011, our client consulted with our office and sought legal assistance. We advised him that we would try to terminate his removal proceedings with the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) cooperation. Our office filed a request to join in a Motion to terminate proceedings with a copy of the I-485 application and supporting documents on November 8, 2011. The DHS counsel in Cleveland agreed to terminate our client’s removal proceedings. The Immigration Judge then granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice on December 7, 2011.

After the case got terminated, we filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status application with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) on December 22, 2011. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. There was no Request for Evidence. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients. On March 22, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland USCIS. We accompanied them at the interview as well. The interview went well, and our client’s green card application was approved the same day of the interview. After ten years in the United States and being through removal proceedings, our client is finally a permanent resident.

For other termination of proceedings success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: El Salvadorian
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States without inspection and admission from El Salvador in 2004. When he was crossing the border, the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officials picked him up and placed him in a minor house as he was only 17 at that time.  Later, our client went to the Phoenix Immigration Court for his first hearing, and later on his venue was changed to Cleveland as he informed the Court that he was moving to Cleveland to live with his brother, who was on Temporary Protected Status (TPS).  He then appeared for his first hearing before the Cleveland Immigration Court. At the hearing, they scheduled a date for his next hearing, but also informed him that the hearing will change, and that he will get a notice in the mail. Our client has lived in Cleveland with his brother who has TPS status since. He never got the hearing notice.

On February 1, 2012, our client’s brother got a phone call from the Immigration Service and they asked him about our client.  The brother asked them what our client did wrong, and to his surprise, he was informed that our client had a final order of removal in November 2006. He was told that his brother should go to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on a specific date “to be processed”.

Our client and his brother immediately sought our help, and upon our check of our client’s A number with the court system, found that his final order was issued in November 2006 in Cleveland, OH.  We told him that he has a final order of removal and because of that, when he goes to ICE on his appointment date, he might get picked up. We told them that he has to file a Motion to Reopen before he goes to ICE for his appointment, and show them that the Motion was filed. He was already deportable, and the Motion would stay deportation and lessen the chance that he gets detained.

So our client retained our office the day before his appointment with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). We met him extensively to prepare the affidavit and on the same day, our office prepared and filed the Motion to Reopen with the Cleveland Immigration Court. We also gave our client a copy so that he could show ICE that he had an automatic stay with the pending Motion to Reopen.  Our client never received his hearing notice; moreover, his prior appearances in Court show that he previously complied with immigration appointments.

Documentation of his address at the date of the final order, a detailed affidavit regarding his addresses and his circumstances around the final order date, documentation of the last address he provided to the immigration service prior to the final order date, and other supporting documents were submitted.  In the Motion, we also explained that our client feared going back to El Salvador and that he intended to file asylum if the case is reopened.

When our client went to ICE, he showed the Motion to Reopen and fortunately, he was not detained. He was also issued an Order of Supervision, which was an added bonus since he became eligible to file a work permit.

Then, on March 13, 2012, the Cleveland Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case. Our client now does not have a final order of removal and may seek relief with the Immigration Court.

For other Motion to Reopen success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Nigerian
COURT LOCATION: Baltimore, Maryland / New York, NY
RESIDENCE: Brooklyn, NY

Our client came to the United States with valid B-2 visitors visa in 2002, and later married his previous U.S. Citizen wife. He filed his green card application based on his previous marriage, but they separated prior to the interview so he never got notice of his interview, denial and the eventual notice to appear in Court.

Years later, our client married his second U.S. Citizen spouse, and he again filed for his green card application himself. Prior to retaining our firm, he went to his I-130 and adjustment of status interview only to find out that he had a final order many years ago. He did not know about it. So his case was denied. He was told by the officer that he had to reopen his case. We met our client at our New York office and he retained us on August 2010 for the Motion to Reopen.

If an alien does not go to his or her scheduled hearing with the Immigration Court, regardless of the reason, you will on that day have an in absentia order of removal. Once this is triggered, you are susceptible to being detained and subsequently deported by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Through a Motion to Reopen, the Immigration Judge can rescind the in absentia order of removal if you are able to show that you did not receive proper notice of the notice to appear. If the Notice to Appear was sent to the wrong address for example, then there’s a good basis for a Motion to Reopen.

On August 31, 2010, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Baltimore Immigration Court. Documentation of his address at the date of the final order, a detailed 4-page affidavit regarding his addresses and his circumstances around the final order date, documentation of the last address he provided to the immigration service prior to the final order date, and other supporting documents were submitted. The Department of Homeland Security did not file an opposition or response to our Motion. On November 8, 2010, our office called the Court to follow up and we were informed that the Motion was granted.  Upon approval of the Motion to Reopen, we filed a Motion to Change of Venue as well.  The Baltimore Immigration Court granted our Motion, and later our client’s venue was changed to New York, NY.

Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our client at his Master Calendar hearing at the New York Immigration Court in March 2011, and he explained that an I-130 is pending and that a Stokes interview should be scheduled soon. On September 15, 2011,
Attorney JP Sarmiento accompanied our client and his U.S. Citizen wife for their I-130 Stokes interview. The interview went well, and the USCIS officer determined that our client’s marriage to his U.S. citizen wife was bona fide.  On the same day, the I-130 petition was approved.

With the approved I-130 petition, we filed a request to join in a motion to terminate with the DHS.  After review of our client’s application, the DHS agreed to join the motion. On October 22, 2011, the New York Immigration Court granted our Motion to Terminate, so our client’s removal proceedings were terminated.  Thereafter, our client filed an I-485 Adjustment of Status application to the USCIS on October 25, 2011.

Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. There was no Request for Evidence.  Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients. On February 13, 2012, our client was interviewed at the New York City, NY USCIS.  We accompanied them at the interview as well. The interview went well, and our client’s green card application was approved on February 28, 2012.

After being in the U.S. for over 10 years and having a final order of removal for about nine years, our client finally has his permanent resident card.

For other Motion to Reopen success stories, please click here.

For other Marriage-Based Green Card success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Master Calendar / Bond Redetermination Hearing
APPLICANT: Chinese
LOCATION: Florence Immigration Court AZ

Our office was contacted in the middle of February regarding two Chinese people who were detained in Florence, Arizona. They tried to enter the United States without valid documents and were incarcerated by immigration officers.

Prior to retention, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement set a very high bond amount.  Our client wished to have that reduced so we filed a motion for bond redetermination with the Florence Immigration Court in Arizona.  Our office communicated with them and their U.S. resident relative in Iowa and New York, and gathered as much information regarding their relief, equities, criminal record, family ties, and financial ability to post bond.  We also gathered supporting documents from those relatives, from proof of their status and residence, to bank statements and tax returns.

On February 23 and 24, 2012, we represented our clients at their Florence Arizona Immigration Court master calendar and bond re-determination hearings.  For the Master Calendar hearing, we did pleadings and sought asylum relief. During the bond re-determination hearing, we explained to the Court that our clients already passed their credible fear interviews, were not a flight risk, had established their residence upon release, had established their financial ability to post bond, and that they had ample family ties in the United States who submitted proof of their residence and immigration status.  Moreover, our office explained that their lack of criminal record, designated address with contact information from their relative in the United States, ability to post bond, and eligibility for asylum relief clearly demonstrate that the bond should be reduced.  At the end of the hearing, the Immigration Judge took our arguments into account and reduced the bond amount.

Our clients have been released, venue has been changed, and they are now in the process of preparing their asylum applications.

For other jail case success stories, please click here.

For other deportation success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }