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: 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: 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: Motion to Stay / Motion to Reopen / Jail Release
CLIENT: Indonesian
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States with a valid B-2 visa from Indonesia in March 2003. He later filed for asylum but was denied by the Immigration Judge in May 2010.  Our client subsequently filed a timely appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), but the BIA also dismissed appeal on October 21, 2011.

 In December 2011, our client married his U.S. Citizen wife and through our office, filed an I-130 petition on January 3, 2012.  Once we obtained the I-130 receipt notice, we filed a Motion to Reopen on January 10, 2012, within the 90-day deadline for filing Motions to Reopen with the BIA. 

On January 12, 2012 our client was picked up and detained by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. We visited our client and jail and soon filed a Motion to Stay with the BIA. A stay if approved would prevent deportation pending a pending appeal or motion. Our office argued that the Board should issue a stay of removal pending a decision on the Motion to Reopen.  The Motion to Stay was filed with evidence of a bona fide marriage, however, on January 27, 2012, the BIA denied our request for stay. We immediately called ICE and they already set a deportation date of February 2, 2012. Since there was no limit to the Motions to Stay that one can file, we prepared another Motion to Stay on January 27, 2012, spending the whole day with our client’s wife in putting in more evidence of their bona fide marriage including a broad power of attorney entrusting his wife with the management of his financial, personal, and real property interests, a joint bank account, and numerous letters and photographs from family and friends affirming the bona fide nature of their marriage.  Our office argued that these types of documents submitted with our Motion clearly demonstrate that their marriage was entered into in good faith as the BIA set forth in Matter of Velarde, 23 I&N Dec. 253 (BIA 2002). On January 31, 2012, two days before the deportation date, our Motion to Stay was approved, which meant that our client would not be deported on February 2. 

Eventually, the BIA granted our client’s Motion to Reopen on February 8, 2012, and remanded it to the Immigration Judge to allow our client to apply for adjustment of status (green card). Upon approval of the Motion to Reopen, we promptly contacted ICE and requested release.  On February 10, 2012, our client finally released from the detention facility. Now he simply has to wait for his I-130 interview and once that is approved, he can apply for adjustment of status.

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

For other jail release 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: Senegalese
LOCATION: Baltimore, MD

Our client came to the United States with a valid F-1 student visa from Senegal in 2006.  Later, he married his current U.S. Citizen wife, and retained our office for his adjustment of status case.  We prepared his I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application, and filed the application on March 21, 2011. 

However, a week before his I-130 interview, our client’s adjustment of status application was denied.  Unbeknownst to our client and us, our client was placed in removal proceeding and the Immigration Judge issued a final order against our client in 2010.  Our client was very surprised and informed our office that he never knew of his final order, his hearing, nor the fact that he was even placed in removal proceedings.

Our client never received a Notice to Appear, and as such did not know that he was in removal proceedings, did not know that had to go to Court, did not know that he had to inform the Immigration Court through Form EOIR-33 of his change of address, and ultimately did not know that he had a final order for not appearing at his 2010 hearing.  Our client asked us for help in his case and we advised him to file a Motion to Reopen in absentia order of removal.

On June 17, 2011, our office filed a Motion to Reopen with the Baltimore 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 (39 exhibits).  However, the Department of Homeland Security filed an opposition to our Motion.  In response to the DHS’ brief, our office filed a Response to the Government’s Opposition to Motion on July 8, 2011. 

On December 8, 2011, the Baltimore Immigration Court denied our motion. However, our office thought that IJ’s decision was incorrect. In response to the Court’s decision, our office filed a Motion to Reconsider on December 28, 2011. On January 31, 2012, the Baltimore Immigration Court granted our Motion to reconsider and sent our office a new hearing notice for our client. Our client now does not have the final order of removal and may seek relief with the Immigration Court, or seek termination of proceedings for CIS adjudication of his green card.

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: Ivorian (Cote D’Ivoire)
LOCATION: Atlanta, GA

Our client came to the United States with a valid P-1 visa from Cote D’Ivoire in 1997. Later, she married her U.S. Citizen ex-husband and her ex-husband filed an I-130 petition on her behalf. Our client also simultaneously filed an I-485 adjustment of status application.  While the petition and application were pending, our client moved to a different apartment and filed a change of address to the INS.  However, they did not receive any interview notice from the INS for two years, so they hired an immigration attorney to follow-up on their pending application.  Apparently, to no knowledge of Respondent, the INS issued an interview notice, but it was delivered to the wrong address. Only after a decade later through a file request did our client find out about the interview notice. Since our client could not appear at her interview, her adjustment application was deemed abandoned, and she was placed in removal proceedings based on her overstay.

Unfortunately, our client was not aware of the issuance of the Notice to Appear (“NTA”). Based on the file she obtained years later from her file request, the Notice to Appear (NTA) was sent by regular mail and her address was completely wrong.  Our client never lived at the address stated on the NTA and never wrote that address on any form submitted to the USCIS nor the former INS.  Our client thus never received her NTA, never knew about her being in removal proceedings nor her obligations to submit Form EOIR-33.  Because of her absence at the hearing at the Atlanta Immigration Court, the court issued an in absentia order of removal in 2001. 

Our client got divorced with her ex-husband five years ago.  She married her current U.S. Citizen husband last year and contacted our office to seek legal assistance for her adjustment of status in November 2011.  After obtaining background information, we informed her that she has a final order of removal since 2001.  Our client was surprised because she actually had an attorney in 2002 to follow up on her case and she was never informed by the immigration service nor by her attorney of this final order.  She told us that she never received an NTA.  We advised her that she needs to file a Motion to Reopen in absentia order of removal.

Through a Motion to Reopen In Absentia Order of Removal, 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 your hearing. If the Notice to Appear was sent to the wrong address for example, and not the last address you provided to the immigration service, then you’d have a good basis for this type of Motion to Reopen.

On December 2, 2011, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Atlanta Immigration Court. Documentation of her address at the date of the final order, a detailed affidavit regarding her addresses and the circumstances around the final order date, documentation of the last address she provided to the immigration service prior to the final order, and other supporting documents were submitted (12 exhibits). The Department of Homeland Security filed a non- opposition to our Motion. On December 13, 2011, the Atlanta Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case.  Now our client does not have a final order of removal and may seek adjustment of status relief with the Immigration Court upon approval of an I-130, or seek termination of proceedings for the CIS to adjudicate her green card application also upon approval of her I-130.

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:  Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Pakistani
LOCATION: Houston, TX

Our client is a Pakistani citizen who currently resides in Houston, Texas with her U.S. Citizen husband.  Our client entered the United States on a valid L-2 visa in November 2000.  She was  then granted withholding of removal in July 2006 by the Philadelphia Immigration Court as a derivative beneficiary of her father’s sought relief.  In March 2009, our client married her U.S. citizen husband and her husband filed an I-130 petition on behalf of our client.  The I-130 petition was approved in October, 2010.  However, due to bad advice by their previous counsel, they also filed an I-485 application with the USCIS which was understandably denied due to lack of jurisdiction considering she is in withholding of removal status.  They were not informed that our client’s case should first be reopened in the Immigration Court before she can apply for adjustment of status either with the Court, or with the CIS should proceedings be terminated after reopening.

In March 2011, our client and her U.S. citizen husband contacted our office and sought legal assistance for her immigration matters. Our client retained us on March 29, 2011.  Upon retention, we filed a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen to the USICE-DHS office in Philadelphia.  Our cover brief explained the withholding of removal status, the approval of the I-130, and other equitable factors totaling 28 exhibits.

We called the DHS office in Philadelphia several times and on November 23, 2011, they finally agreed to join in the Motion to Reopen and an assigned counsel signed the Joint Motion. Now our client can apply for Adjustment of Status with the Immigration Court, or with the CIS upon a possible termination by the Court.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }

Case: Motion to Reopen / Terminate with the Immigration Court
Nationality: Chinese
Location: Newark, NJ

Our client had a final order of exclusion from the Newark Immigration Court in 1992. He was considered an arriving alien, was inspected by the DHS officer, and was paroled into the United States.  Despite his final order of exclusion, our client remained in the United States and eventually married his U.S. Citizen spouse.  In 2008, this client ultimately obtained his permanent residency through adjustment of status with the USCIS as an arriving alien.

After he obtained his permanent residency, he retained our office to terminate his final order of exclusion.  Since he had a final order of exclusion from the Newark Immigration Court, our office filed a Sua Sponte Motion to Reopen and Terminate to the Newark Immigration Court on September 13, 2011.  In the Motion, we contended that our client’s case should be re-opened and terminated since our client already obtained his permanent residency.  Our client wanted his order of exclusion terminated to avoid potential issues or confusion with the immigration service, such as when he travels abroad and comes back through one of the port of entries.  We also noted that Respondent is not disputing the validity of his permanent resident card, but asked for removal proceedings to be terminated.  

As a result, the Newark Immigration Court granted our Sua Sponte Motion to Reopen and Terminate on October 3, 2011. Our client now does not have a final order of exclusion on his records.

For other Motion to Reopen and Terminate success stories, please click here and 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 and Rescind an In Absentia Order of Removal Based on Exceptional Circumstances
CLIENT: Moldovan
LOCATION: Baltimore, Maryland

Our Moldovan client came to the United States in 2008 with a J-1 visa.  Her ex-husband filed for asylum and she was a derivative applicant for this asylum application. After the application was filed, our client attended all necessary appointments related to her immigration applications.  She went to the CIS office to do her fingerprinting, and attended her asylum interview at the Arlington Asylum office.  Our client also attended her first Master Calendar hearing on March 2010 after her ex- husband’s asylum case was referred to the Baltimore Immigration Court.  Eventually, Respondent and her ex-husband’s individual hearing dates were scheduled on May 19, 2011.
�
Due to marital difficulties between our client and her ex-husband, her previous lawyer filed a Motion to Deconsolidate in October 2010.  Since our client was a derivative asylum applicant with her ex-husband, the Motion stated that she had her own independent grounds for seeking asylum relief.  Nonetheless, since she filed the Motion to Deconsolidate, she never got a response from her previous attorney nor the Court regarding the possible deconsolidation.�
�
From May 16, 2011 to May 24, 2011, our client was in a great deal of pain with headaches, fever, and other symptoms that resulted from the extraction of her tooth on April 30, 2011.  On the days leading up to the hearings, our client got very sick, including May 19, 2011, the individual hearing date. Thus she did not appear before the Court on her individual hearing date.  

She later learned about her order of removal on August 3, 2011.  On that day, the divorce between our client and her ex-husband was finalized.  When our client met her ex-husband, he informed her that she was ordered removed on May 19, 2011 because of her absence at the hearing. Her ex-husband was in that hearing and actually won his asylum case. Once she learned about the order of removal, she immediately contacted her previous attorney and explained to him that she was not able to attend her hearing due to illness.  Our client never received anything pertaining to her order of removal.  She intended to attend Court on May 19, 2011 but was too sick to do so.

Our client contacted and retained our office on August 15, 2011 for the Motion to Reopen and Rescind her in absentia order.  After listening to her reasons and learning the surrounding circumstances pertaining to her non-appearance in Court, our office determined that the Immigration Court will most likely grant our client’s Motion to Rescind an in absentia order based on exceptional circumstances. 

We contended that our client could not attend at the hearing due to her medical condition and her absence was inevitable due to her sickness.  Our office included supporting documents such as a doctor’s letter, copies of her medical prescriptions, a letter from her employer stating her absence from work around the time of the Individual Hearing, etc.  Our office filed the Motion on August 18, 2011 within the statutory time frame.  The DHS, however, opposed our Motion, so we filed a response on August 31, 2011.   On September 20, 2011, the Baltimore Immigration Court granted our client’s Motion and rescinded the order of removal.  Our client’s case is re-opened, and she can now pursue her asylum claim. 

For other motion to reopen success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }