CASE: Administrative Closure in Removal Proceedings
CLIENT: Mexican
LOCATION: Atlanta, GA
Our client came to the United States in April 1994 from Mexico. When he entered the U.S, he was not inspected and admitted. He has stayed in the United States ever since and never left. He now lives in Atlanta, GA with two U.S. citizen children. He is a good worker and a good father for his kids.
In 2010, he was picked up and detained by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Moreover, he did not even know he had a final order of removal, so he contacted our office. With our office’s assistance, he filed a Motion to Reopen in Absentia and this Motion was granted by the Atlanta Immigration Court in 2010. After that he was placed in removal proceeding again.
On August 25, 2011, Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office represented our client at his master calendar hearing at the Atlanta Immigration Court. We did pleadings and asked for cancellation of removal for non-LPR relief. The individual hearing was scheduled for September 11, 2013.
Our client did not have enough hardships and we understood we were with one of the toughest judges in the country, so with consent from our client, our office sought prosecutorial discretion with the DHS to administratively close our client’s case. We note that our client at this point already obtained his work permit.
Our request was based on John Morton’s Memorandum issued on June 17, 2011. Former USCIS Director John Morton issued a memorandum clarifying and expanding prior Immigration and Customs Enforcement directives regarding prosecutorial discretion.
This memorandum notes that prosecutorial discretion should be exercised in a wide range of situations including “granting deferred action, granting parole, or staying a final order of removal.” ICE now considers nineteen non-exclusive factors, including the following factors relevant to this case:
- The agency’s civil immigration enforcement priorities;
- The person’s length of presence in the United States, with particular consideration given to presence while in lawful status;
- The person’s criminal history, including arrests, prior convictions, or outstanding arrest warrants;
- The person’s immigration history, including any prior removal, outstanding order of removal, prior denial of status, or evidence of fraud;
- Whether the person poses a national security or public safety concern;
- The person’s ties and contributions to the community, including family relationships;
- The person’s ties to the home country and conditions in the country;
- whether the person has a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, child, or parent;
No one factor is determinative and decisions to exercise prosecutorial discretion should be based on the totality of the circumstances.
On July 25, 2013, our office filed a written request to administratively close proceedings for our client. In the brief, we argued that most factors weigh heavily in favor of an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Our client has been in the U.S. for 19 years, and has two Citizen children. Also, he has never been convicted of any crime, and has always paid taxes. He fully supports his kinds, and sends them to school. We also argued that it would be tough for his family if he was to be deported, considering he is the sole supporter of his two U.S. citizen children throughout their lives. Our office included numerous letters of support from his co-workers and friends, tax records, criminal record search, and other supporting documents.
On September 11, 2013, at his Individual Hearing, the DHS requested administrative closure for our client’s case based on our request. The court granted the request, and our client’s case is now administratively closed. He can now continue staying in the United States, work legally due to his work permit, and continue renewing it while his case is administratively closed.