Deportation

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 clients retained our firm to represent them at an I-130 interview in New York. Our client was in removal proceedings and needed an I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) approval to be eligible for adjustment of status. The I-130 was previously filed by another attorney and we were able to push to get a quick interview. After an extensive interview where we supplied the documentation to support the case, the I-130 was approved. Our client can now proceed with her green card application. Scott Bratton handled the case.

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.

Our client hired us after he was detained by ICE after he was released from federal prison. We were successfully able to secure a bond from the Immigration Court in Louisiana. We also applied for an I-130 because he was married to a United States citizen. After an interview on the I-130, the case was approved in New York. Our client can now apply for a green card. Scott Bratton and Troy Murphy handled the case.

Our client hired us after he had been in the U.S. for a long period of time. He failed to maintain his status. He was placed in removal proceedings and we were hired to handle the case. We applied for withholding of removal based on his conversion from being a Muslim to a Christian. We argued that he would be persecuted in Iran due to his conversion and length of residence in the U.S. After a contested hearing on the matter, the immigration judge agreed with our arguments and granted withholding of removal. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client, a Pakistani Citizen, was previously placed in removal proceedings before the Immigration Court because of overstaying her visitor visa. The case was administratively closed due to lack of prosecution from the government. Later she married a US Citizen and in November 2006 they hired our office to pursue her Green Card application with the Immigration Court. Our office filed a Motion to Re-calendar her case before the Court, but our Motion was rejected. The court could not accept the case again because of lack of prosecution. Our office filed Green Card application with CIS in April 2007. CIS administratively closed the case for lack of jurisdiction arguing that only Immigration Court had jurisdiction over the case. In August 2007 our office then filed a complaint with the Federal Court to solve the conflict of jurisdiction. Our client's Green Card application was approved in June 2008. Scott Bratton handled this case assisted by Fabiola Cini and Francis Ramirez.

We were hired after our client had an in absentia order of removal for failing to attend his hearing. Our client stated that he did not receive his hearing notice. Although he updated DHS with his new address, the hearing notice was sent to his old address. DHS argued that the case should not be reopened because our client did not inform the Court of his new address. We argued that informing DHS of his new address was sufficient. In May 2008, the Immigration Judge rescinded the in absentia order and reopened the case. Scott Bratton and Kristie Lumakin worked on the case.

Our client retained us after his application for Temporary Protected Status that he had filed in 2001 was denied and he was placed in removal proceedings. He had applied to it because of the situation of violence in his home country, El Salvador. After demonstrating our client's eligibility, he was granted Temporary Protected Status by the Immigration Judge. Troy Murphy handled this 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 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.

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.

Our client applied for adjustment of status (I-485). However, he had a criminal conviction for a serious offense. We were able to successfully argue that his criminal conviction could not serve as a basis for deportation and that adjustment of status was warranted as a matter of discretion. Our client's case was approved in May 2008. Scott Bratton attended the adjustment of status interview.

Our client, a Mexican citizen, entered US without inspection in May 1998. He was placed in Removal Proceedings in 2003. He was detained and then released after his US Citizen wife paid the bond in September 2003. They moved to a different address after to bond was posted and informed CIS for the change of address. Since he had not heard anything regarding his case for a while, he went to an info pass appointment to CIS to request on status. At this time he was informed that an absentia order of deportation was issued on his case and after being detained for only a couple of days he was deported to Mexico. Our client was protected under INA 245 (i) due to an approved labor certification filed on April 23, 2001. He was also married to US Citizen in 2003 but she never filed an I-130, Petition for Alien Relative on his behalf. As soon as he was detained by ICE, our office filed in a record time a Motion to Reopen to Rescind in Absentia Removal Order with Immigration Court arguing that our client failed to receive proper notice of his hearing. We also filed I-130, Petition for Alien Relative. Our motion to reopen was granted and his case was reopened but our client was already deported. We attempted to negotiate with ICE to bring him back because he should have not been deported while the motion was still pending. However, ICE could not bring him back at the time. We had to continue our battle to bring our client back to his family in US. Since case was reopened he was soon scheduled for his hearing before Immigration Court. We appeared on his removal hearing before Immigration Court and his case was terminated after we argued that he is eligible to adjust his status to a Permanent Resident. His I-130 was also approved in May 2008 and our office will now continue consular processing of his Green Card based on the I-130 approval. We are expecting our client to be back in US very soon. He does not have a bar of returning because his removal proceeding has been terminated. Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong & Assoc. assisted by Fabiola Cini.

We filed an appeal of the Immigration Judge's decision finding our client subject to removal for an offense related to a controlled substance. We argued that there was not a sufficient relationship between the offense for which our client was convicted and a controlled substance. The Board agreed with our analysis and found that our client was not subject to removal as charged by DHS. Scott Bratton handled the case

Our client came to us after she realized she had been ordered deportation for failing to appear at her hearing. She did not realize that she even was in deportation proceedings because she was in valid nonimmigrant status. However, she had been put in proceedings after her asylum case was referred to the Immigration Court. We found that the Immigration Court did not properly enter an in absentia order and filed a Motion to Reopen on this ground. In March 2008, the Immigration Court in New York granted the Motion to Reopen. Our client can now move to terminate proceedings. Scott Bratton and JP Sarmiento handled the case.

Our client hired us after she had been detained because she missed her hearing over 10 years ago. She was charged with being subject to deportation due to an old criminal conviction. Our client did not get notice of the hearing although the Government argued the proper notice was given because our client failed to file a change of address form. We argued that the in absentia order of deportation was improperly entered because the Government failed to submit proof that our client was subject to deportation as charged. The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed with our argument and granted the Motion. Our client has been released from custody. Scott Bratton and JP Sarmiento handled the case. 

On July 2006 we had our first contact with a client when he was in jail. His detention had been ordered three years before because he had failed to appear for a hearing. In the same month we filed a Motion to Reopen, motion to rescind previous removal order, and request to release, based on negligent misrepresentation by previous attorney. Apparently, the previous attorney had failed to inform DHS and Immigration Court of immigrant's change of address, and had also failed to notify him of the hearing, even if he had been regularly calling the attorney. We also filed a Bar Complaint against previous attorney. This case was worked with a thorough follow up at Court and constant communication with client and his family. Finally, on December 2007 the BIA (Board of Immigration Appeals) ordered that the appeal is sustained, proceedings reopened and record remanded for further proceedings. This was a remarkable decision, since it is very difficult to get approvals from BIA nowadays. Currently we have filed a FOIA petition to obtain copy of his past records and continue the case.

Our client hired Margaret Wong and Associates after he was picked up on an outstanding removal order. He had missed his removal hearing. When discussing the case with our client, he advised us that he never received the hearing notice despite the fact it had allegedly been mailed to the proper address. We then filed a motion to reopen with supporting evidence to show that there was a lack of proper notice. The motion was denied by the Immigration Judge. However, on appeal, the Board agreed that we submitted sufficient proof that our client failed to receive his hearing notice despite the evidence that it was sent via regular mail to the proper address. JP Sarmiento and Scott Bratton handled the case. Our client has been released from ICE custody. 

During the week of December 17, 2007, we were able to get 2 clients released on bond granted by an Immigration Judge where bond had previously been denied. Scott Bratton and Margaret Wong handled these cases. 

Our client retained Margaret Wong & Associates after being detained by the Department of Homeland Security due to his final deportation order. Our client was unaware that he had a deportation order. The deportation case was based on several criminal convictions. We filed a motion to reopen asking that the case be reopened to allow our client to apply for 212(c) relief. The motion was originally denied due to an erroneous belief that motions to reopen for 212(c) relief could not be used when the underlying deportation order was an in absentia order. Upon reconsideration, the Board granted the motion to reopen. The case was then scheduled for a hearing on the § 212(c) waiver application in December 2007. After a full hearing, the Immigration Judge granted the § 212(c) waiver. Scott Bratton handled the case for our office. 

Our client retained us after his two previous applications for naturalization had been denied and eh was placed in deportation proceedings as it was alleged he lied upon his last entry into the United States and on his application for permanent residence regarding his prior J-1 waiver. Our office contested these allegations and had the matter set for a hearing before the Immigration Court. After hearing all the evidence at a hearing on the issue of whether our client, by fraud or willful misrepresentation, lied regarding his J-1 waiver, the Immigration Judge found our client did not commit fraud or willfully misrepresent his status and terminated our client's deportation proceedings. Later we filed a Motion to Reopen with a fee waiver for the N400 (Application for Naturalization) and it was granted. The client had new fingerprints taken and his N400 was subsequently approved. Our attorney, Troy Murphy, handled this case for our office.

Our client represented a Sikh woman from India.  Although she had never been persecuted, she feared returning to India,  After a four hour hearing with the Immigration Judge, the Judge granted withholding of removal as we requested.  Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong & Associates.
 
Our firm represented two Chinese individuals who were being detained by ICE in Pennsylvania without bond.  We requested an expedited bond redetermination hearing, which was granted.  At our request, the Immigration Judge granted bond in each case.  Our clients have posted bond and have been released.  Scott Bratton handled the case for our firm.

Our client was charged with being subject to removal for commission of an aggravated felony.  We were able to successfully argue that the criminal conviction was not an aggravated felony.  Removal proceedings were terminated.  Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong & Associates

Our client hired Margaret Wong and Associates after he was placed in removal proceedings for a drug trafficking conviction.  He was subject to mandatory detention due to his criminal conviction.  At his hearing, we denied the allegation that our client had been convicted of an aggravated felony and requested cancellation of removal.  The Immigration Judge determined that our client’s conviction was for an aggravated felony and thus found him ineligible for cancellation of removal.  We appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals.  The Board agreed with our argument and remanded the case to the Immigration Judge for a full hearing on our client’s cancellation of removal application.  We called four witnesses, including an expert, in support of the cancellation of removal application.  After hearing our arguments and considering the evidence presented, the Court granted cancellation of removal.  This will allow our client, a long-time lawful permanent resident, to remain in the US with his family.  Scott Bratton and Troy Murphy handled the case for Margaret Wong and Associates.

When our client retained Margaret Wong & Associates, he had a final removal order for failing to attend his hearing.  We filed a Motion to Reopen and argued that his case should be reopened to allow him to apply for a waiver under INA Section 212(c).  He had been placed in removal proceedings for multiple theft convictions, one of which was an aggravated felony.  We were successful in reopening the case.  His case was then set for a 212(c) hearing.  After hearing the evidence in the case, the Immigration Judge granted a 212(c) waiver, which allows our client to remain with his family in the US as a lawful permanent resident.  Scott Bratton represented our client.

Our client had previously retained us in 1992 to obtain a 212(c) waiver for her pre-1992 criminal convictions.  Unfortunately, after our office obtained this waiver for our client, our client was placed in removal proceedings for a second time for having committed three new offenses after receiving the waiver.  Our office filed Motions to Vacate our client’s guilty pleas in all three cases.  All three of our client’s convictions were vacated and, as a result, our office was able to get our client’s removal proceedings terminated for a second time.  Troy Murphy handled both the criminal and deportation matters for our client regarding this matter.

When our client hired Margaret Wong & Associates, he had a final order of deportation.  He had also received a letter from the Government asking him to report for immediate deportation.  Upon reviewing the case, we concluded that our client could file a motion to reopen his deportation case based on 2001 regulations regarding the availability of a waiver of deportation under INA Section 212(c).  We were able to successfully negotiate with the Government to allow our client to remain in the United States while his motion to reopen was pending.  Although there was a jurisdictional issue regarding our client’s eligibility for reopening under the regulations, we were able to convince the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen the case.  In August 2006, our client finally had his hearing on his 212(c) waiver application.  After considering the evidence, the Immigration Judge granted a 212(c) waiver, which allowed our client to get his green card back.  It also will allow him to apply for citizenship.  The successful outcome of the case also allows our client to remain in the US will his family, including his United States citizen daughter.  Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong & Associates. Fabiola Cini also worked on this case.

Our client is married to a lawful permanent resident.  He is also in removal proceedings.  His wife just passed the naturalization test and is set to be sworn in as a United States citizen in the near future.  The I-130 petition she filed on behalf of our client is still pending.  At his removal hearing, we were able to get the Immigration Judge to administratively close the case to allow for our client’s wife to naturalize and to allow the I-130 to be adjudicated.  This will allow him to apply for adjustment of status with the Immigration Judge.  Scott Bratton attended the removal hearing.

When our client hired our office, he had been convicted of drug trafficking in Ohio.  The Department of Homeland Security placed him in removal proceedings due to this conviction.  Although he was subject to removal, we argued that the drug trafficking conviction was not an aggravated felony.  The significance of this is that an aggravated felony conviction would prevent our client from applying for cancellation of removal.  If cancellation of removal is granted, our client would be able to remain in the United States as a lawful permanent resident.  The Immigration Judge disagreed with our argument and found that our client should be deported.  We appealed the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals.  After consideration of our novel legal argument on this issue, the Board found that the Ohio drug trafficking conviction was not an aggravated felony.  Thus, the Board concluded that our client could apply for cancellation of removal.  The case was sent back to the Immigration Judge for a hearing later this year on the cancellation of removal application.  Scott Bratton handled the case.

The Board of Immigration Appeals determined that removal proceedings against our client must be terminated because she was not subject to removal for fraud or a material misrepresentation.  Scott Bratton handled the case for our firm.

When our client retained our firm, he was in removal proceedings.  We applied for withholding of removal from Mauritania.  After hearing evidence on the claim, the Immigration Judge granted withholding of removal.  Scott Bratton represented our client.

When our client retained Margaret Wong & Associates, he wanted to apply for naturalization. However, he had a prior criminal conviction that subjected him to deportation. We immediately filed a motion to vacate the criminal conviction. The motion was granted and the criminal conviction was vacated as the criminal court failed to advise our client of the potential immigration consequences of his guilty plea as required by statute. The original criminal charges were then dismissed. We subsequently filed a naturalization application on behalf of our client. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) advised us that they intended to deny the application because our client was subject to deportation because the vacated conviction could still be used for immigration purposes. We filed a comprehensive response arguing that CIS’ position was wrong and that our client should be granted naturalization. After considering our response, CIS granted the naturalization application. Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong & Associates.

Our client retained us over ten years ago to assist him and his wife in obtaining their green cards after they were placed in deportation proceedings for being out of status. His wife was able to get her green card five years ago through the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), which provides some immigration benefits to “certain Nicaraguans, Cubans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, nationals of former Soviet bloc countries and their dependents”. However, the husband was unable to benefit as a derivative because he was not a citizen of Nicaragua. We then filed both I-130 and I-140 applications on his behalf, which were both approved. In January 2006, our client had his final deportation hearing to determine whether he could remain in the United States. At the hearing, the Immigration Judge granted his application for adjustment of status. Scott Bratton represented our client in the proceedings with the Immigration Court, while Ryan Hess assisted on the I-485.

When our client retained our office, his adjustment of status application had been denied and he had been placed in removal proceedings. His adjustment application was denied because he left the US on advance parole after accumulating more than one year of unlawful presence, triggering a ten year bar. He was erroneously advised by his former attorney that he could leave. After he returned to the US, our client married a US citizen. Due to procedural issues with applying for adjustment of status before the immigration judge, we needed to get removal proceedings terminated and file the adjustment of status application and waiver request (I-601) with CIS. The waiver was needed because our client had a ten year bar for unlawful presence. We were successful in getting removal proceedings terminated so that our client could proceed with his adjustment application with CIS. We filed the I-485 and I-601 waiver with CIS. In January 2006, CIS granted our client’s adjustment of status application and his waiver request. After a long fight, our client is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong and Associates, while Ryan Hess and Fred Calope assisted.