Motions to Reopen / Reconsider and other Motions

A client from Serbia entered the United States on a visitor's visa. She married a U.S. citizen who filed Petition for Alien Relative and Green Card applications (I-130 and I-485 respectively) on her behalf. Unfortunately, the client's husband disappeared before the green card interview. The client did not attend the interview given her husband's disappearance, and her green card application was denied. Subsequently, she was put into deportation proceedings, but she never received her notice to appear or her hearing notice at the proper mailing address informing her that she had been put into deportation. She failed to appear for her hearing and was ordered deported in absentia. A few years later, her daughter became a U.S. citizen and filed I-130/I-485 applications for her mother. Our client hired someone from a legal aid service to help her fill out her paperwork. The I-130 petition was approved, but the I-485 application was never processed because our client's paperwork was mishandled by her representative. Our client hired another translator to help her fill out a new green card application, but this application was returned several times for incorrect fees. The client is finally picked up by ICE and put into custody. Our firm filed a motion to reopen in absentia for our client based on the fact that she did not receive her notice to appear and hearing notice at the proper address. The client's case was reopened, and now she is eligible to apply for her green card. Scott Bratton and Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm with the assistance of Alex Strmac.

Our client retained us after she had been ordered deported and was in ICE custody. We filed a motion to reopen alleging that our client failed to receive proper notice of proceedings. DHS opposed the Motion. After considering our arguments, the Motion was granted and the case was reopened. Additionally, our client was released from ICE custody. Our client is eligible to adjust status now that removal proceedings have been reopened. Debbie Lee and Scott Bratton handled the case.

Great case! Our client came to the United States as a V-1 as she was a spouse of a green card holder. However, she failed to timely extend her V-1 status. While out of status, she filed an application for adjustment of status. The application was denied by CIS because of a failure to maintain status. We then were hired and filed a nunc pro tunc motion to extend her V status arguing that exceptional circumstances prevented the timely filing of the extension request. The motion was denied. We then filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that CIS failed to recognize that it had the authority to grant the untimely extension request nunc pro tunc. We were able to work on a resolution of the case in federal court, which resulted in the V visa request being approved nunc pro tunc to the date the first V visa had expired. Thus, our client was back in valid status and was considered to have always maintained her status. We then filed a motion to reopen the denial of the adjustment of status application due to the V approval. The motion to reopen was granted in July 2008 and our client just received her green card. The result in this case was due to the relentless work of our team of attorneys. We were able to get our client her green card when it initially appeared like she was going to have to leave the United States. She is now able to remain in the United States with her husband. Scott Bratton, Lori Pinjuh, and JP Sarmiento worked on this case.

Our clients from Pakistan hired us after they were detained by ICE due to final orders of removal. We filed a motion to reopen arguing that our clients must have their cases reopened because they were not properly served with the Notice to Appear. The immigration judge denied the motion. We then filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals. After consideration of our detailed brief, the Board granted the motion to reopen. Scott Bratton and JP Sarmiento handled the case.

Our client hired us after she unknowingly had been ordered deported and had her green card application denied. She was unknowingly placed in removal proceedings after an asylum case she filed had been denied. She did not appear at her hearing and was ordered deported. We filed a motion to reopen alleging that she did not receive proper notice of her hearing. The motion was granted. We were also able to successfully terminate removal proceedings in New York in July 2008. Scott Bratton and JP Sarmiento handled the case.

Our client had a final removal order when he retained our firm. He was also married to a United States citizen. We were able to get DHS to agree to reopen his case. Additionally, he was scheduled for an interview on his I-130 petition. After an extensive interview in New York, New York, the I-130 was granted. Our client can now file his green card application so that he can adjust status. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Two Albanian citizens hired our office in 2008. They had applied for political asylum in 2000. Their case was referred to Immigration Court but denied in 2002.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed the case in 2003. In 2003 their daughter became a US Citizen. She filed I-130 petitions on behalf of her parents and those petitions were approved in 2007. Our office filed a proposed joint motion to reopen with the Department of Homeland Security, Chief Counsel's Office. We sought to have their case reopened for humanitarian reasons, so they could apply for adjustment of status as beneficiaries of approved I-130s. In our motion we argued that their removal would cause hardship not only to this elderly couple, but also to their family of US Citizens. We supported our motion with evidence that they were persons of good moral character and neither would become a public charge if permitted to remain in the US. The government agreed to reopen the case only within a month of filing. Now both our clients will be eligible to adjust status before the Immigration Court once the BIA will reopen the case based on our joint MOTION TO REOPEN (MTR). Scott Bratton handled the case for our office.

Our client from China was ordered to be deported more than 14 years ago. His request for asylum based on his fear of being persecuted on account of having violated China's "One-child" policy was denied. He had been staying in US illegally ever since. In 1996 our client's wife and his children came to the US on his wife's mother's petition. In March 2001 his wife filed I-130. Since the petition was filed prior to April 30, 2001 and was clearly approvable when filed, our client was grandfathered under INA 245(I). This application has been pending. In 2003 or client's daughter became a US citizen. She filed an I-130 petition which was approved in 2005. Our office was hired in late 2007 to help him reopen the case. We filed a Joint Motion to Reopen arguing that there were compelling circumstances that warrant a favorable exercise of discretion for the government to join our request. The Department of Homeland Security joined our motion to reopen proceedings and BIA remanded the case to Immigration Court for consideration of his application for adjustment of status. Scott Bratton handled the case for our office.

A client from Mexico hired our firm to handle his deportation case. The client was ordered to be removed in absentia for failure to appear at his hearing. The client had not received his Notice to Appear (NTA) or his hearing notice at the last address provided to USCIS. We saw that the client was eligible to apply for adjustment of status as a lawful permanent resident. Our firm filed a motion to reopen his case for failure to receive his NTA and hearing notice, and the case was reopened. Now we will be able to file for his green card. Scott Bratton and Deborah Lee handled the case for our firm.

Our client was a teenager from China who entered the U.S. on a tourist visa to visit his relatives. While in the U.S. he discovered that he needed jaw surgery and filed an extension of his B-2 visa. USCIS denied the request stating that the applicant had not provided enough evidence to demonstrate that his stay would be temporary. Our firm filed a motion to reopen the denial of his B-2 extension providing evidence demonstrating the client's need for surgery and the temporary nature of his stay. The motion to reopen was granted, and the client's B-2 visa was extended another six months. Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm.

A citizen from China entered without inspection and applied for asylum based on being a member of Falun Gong spiritual group, which is under government persecution in China for their beliefs and practices. He had to postpone his asylum interview because of a medical emergency. He never received a new interview notice in the mail. His case was then referred to the Immigration Judge. He had a new hearing scheduled, but never received a Notice to Appear or a hearing notice, therefore he did not show up again and was ordered to be removed in absentia for failure to appear at his hearing. He was later picked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and detained. At this point, he hired our firm to reopen his case. Our firm filed a motion to reopen in absentia for failure to receive both the Notice to Appear and a hearing notice at his current address. The case was reopened, and the client is now eligible to apply for asylum through the court. Scott Bratton and Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm.

We filed I-485s (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) for the client and her family in April 2004, based on an approved I-140 (Petition for Alien Worker). INS erroneously denied the applications, and we subsequently filed Motions to Reopen for each in March 2006. The Motions to Reopen were granted for the client and her husband. They attended an interview in February 2007, and we received Requests for Evidence for their I-485s in May 2007. We filed responses to the RFEs in July 2007. In May 2008, after several requests for adjudication, the I-485s for client and her husband were approved. Lori Pinjuh and Karim Berdiev worked on this case

Our client from Africa entered on a visitor's visa and overstayed. Later he was put into removal proceedings. The client visited a legal aid clinic for assistance, but he eventually was ordered to be removed in absentia for failure to appear at his removal hearing. The client never really received his hearing notice. Court records showed that client's notice was mailed to a valid address but returned as undeliverable. Our firm filed a motion to reopen his case, providing documentation demonstrating that validity of the address and that the client lived there when the notice was mailed. The case was reopened. Scott Bratton and Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm.

Client from Mexico married a United States citizen. They applied for an I-130 Petition/I-485 Application. The client's I-485 Application was denied for failure to appear at her I-130/I-485 interview. Our firm filed a motion to reopen the case with Immigration demonstrating that the client had every incentive to appear for her interview, had visited the local USCIS office several times inquiring about her case, but never received an interview notice. The case was reopened, and the client was scheduled for her interview. Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm.

Our client, originally from China, was given a final order for deportation in 1994, but he did not leave the country. However, his wife filed an I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) on his behalf in March 2001, which was approved in February 2005, therefore making him eligible for 245(i) Section 245(i) allows certain people to apply for adjustment of status even if they entered the United States illegally or violated their status, provided that a specific petition (I-130 amongst them) was filed by April 30, 2001. It also allows to Adjust Status if the alien has been physically present in the United States on December 21, 2000, if the qualifying visa petition (I-130 in this case) was filed after January 14, 1998. Our client was eligible under both considerations. We filed a Joint Motion to Reopen our client's I-485 with District Counsel in March 2008, and it was approved in May 2008. We will now file an I-485 with Immigration Court. Scott Bratton and Kristie Lumakin worked on this case.