Category: Immigration Court

December 19, 2023

Facts: In October of 2020, a married couple and citizens of El Salvador, came to the firm seeking help with their immigration cases because they had been ordered removed in 2005.   

The Firm’s Representation:  The firm immediately requested our clients’ immigration files from the government through Freedom of Information Act requests.  Upon review of our clients’ immigration court files, the firm noticed that the Notices to Appear for our clients did not contain the time and date of the next hearing and were deficient charging documents according to the tenets of the case Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) in the Supreme Court of the United States.  The firm suggested reopening their removal orders so that they could apply for cancellation of removal, which is commonly known as the 10-year green card.  Cancellation of removal is available for noncitizens in removal proceedings who have resided in the United States for at least ten years and can demonstrate hardship to their qualifying relatives such as U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident children, spouses, or parents if the noncitizen was deported.  In August of 2021, the firm filed two separate motions to reopen for our clients in the San Antonio Immigration Court and in January of 2022, the motions were granted.  Then, the firm consolidated the cases and started the process of applying for cancellation of removal for both of our clients.

Outcome:  On December 7, 2023, our clients’ applications for cancellation of removal were tentatively approved in the Baltimore Immigration Court pending visa availability.  Needless to say, our clients were extremely happy, overwhelmed, and emotional.

Comments:  Our clients in this case were hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding, and loving parents of two U.S. citizen children, but they had lived in the United States with a cloud of uncertainty hanging over their heads with those old removal orders.  The firm prides itself on finding ways to reopen old deportation and removal orders so our clients can move forward and finally obtain lawful status in the United States.

July 11, 2022

Facts: In March of 2020, a citizen of El Salvador came to the firm seeking help with his immigration case because he had hired an attorney in 2017 to reopen his removal order, but as of March of 2020, this attorney had not even tried to reopen his removal order.

The Firm’s Representation:  The firm immediately requested our client’s immigration files from the government through Freedom of Information Act requests.  Upon review of our client’s immigration court file, the firm noticed that our client’s former attorney made a mistake and should have immediately filed a motion to rescind in 2017 but instead did nothing and let the deadline to file a timely motion to rescind elapse.  The firm filed a motion to reopen and rescind based on ineffective assistance of counsel according to the Board of Immigration Appeal’s case of Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988). 

Proceedings:   The firm’s motion was contested by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).  The firm wrote a response to the DHS opposition, but the Immigration Judge ultimately denied the motion for the reasons stated by the DHS.  The firm timely appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Outcome:  On March 14, 2022, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the decision of the Immigration Judge and reopened our client’s removal proceedings and the case was remanded back to the Immigration Judge.  On June 13, 2022, the Immigration Judge dismissed our client’s removal proceedings so that he could pursue an immigrant visa abroad.

Comments:  The firm prides itself on fighting for our clients when there has been an injustice.  Here, our client hired an attorney to reopen his removal order, our client paid the attorney to do so, but the attorney never filed the motion to reopen and missed an important deadline, which is an injustice.  It is also important to realize that the firm has no control over immigration judges and their decisions, but the firm will not stop fighting to get a positive outcome for our clients who have suffered injustices.

October 28, 2021

Facts: In July of 2020, a citizen of El Salvador, who had been living in the shadows because he was afraid of being deported based on a 2009 removal order, came to the firm seeking help with his immigration case.

The Firm’s Representation:  The firm immediately requested our client’s immigration files from the government through Freedom of Information Act requests.  Upon review of our client’s immigration court file, the firm noticed that our client’s prior attorney made a mistake in 2009 and missed the fact that our client was eligible for a green card through NACARA (our client’s father received NACARA benefits at a time that could benefit our client too), and instead let our client take an order of removal.  Notably, the attorney who had made the mistake had been indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in 2018 for, among other things, “for failing to represent his client competently and diligently.”  Based on the mistake made by our client’s previous lawyer and the fact that the previous lawyer had been suspended for incompetence, in early 2021, the firm filed a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel according to the Board of Immigration Appeal’s case of Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988).

Outcome:  On August 13, 2021, our client’s motion to reopen was granted and our client was given a quick hearing date and on October 26, 2021, our client was granted lawful permanent residency pursuant to NACARA.

Comments:  Our client is a devoted family man and he did not want to get deported, so for 12 years he hid in the shadows to avoid detection by immigration authorities.  After being granted a green card in court, our client and his family were overcome with emotion because, after so many years of hiding, our client could finally come out of the shadows.

September 3, 2021

Facts: In  September of 2018, a citizen of El Salvador came to the firm seeking help with her immigration case.

The Firm’s Representation:  Our client had had several other immigration lawyers representing her, but these attorneys were not able to get her into a legal status.  The firm noticed that she had been placed in deportation proceedings in 1993 and that her case had been placed in administrative closure for a very long time.  The firm also noticed that because the Order to Show Cause had not been properly served on our client, she was still eligible for suspension of deportation, which is a form of relief that had been repealed in 1997, but was still available to our client even in 2021.  The firm re-calendared our client’s deportation proceedings and asked the immigration court to schedule our client for a hearing on her application for suspension of deportation, which took a long time based on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Outcome:  On September 3, 2021, our client’s application for suspension of deportation was approved pending visa availability in the next two to three years.

Comments:  The firm prides itself on digging deep into our client’s immigration files and history to find avenues for relief that other attorneys miss.

November 11, 2020

Facts: In April of 2016, a citizen of Jamaica came to the firm seeking help with his temporary residence card which had expired six years earlier.  Too, our client had already been placed in removal proceedings.

The Firm’s Representation:  Given the six-year delay, the firm could not promise our client a positive result, nevertheless the firm went to work right away and gathered the necessary documents and forms to try to remove the temporary conditions of our client’s temporary residency card.  The firm discovered that our client’s wife had filed for divorce and never properly served our client with any notice of the divorce proceedings.  The firm applied for a waiver based on divorce in the I-751 Petition to Remove Temporary Conditions on Residency application.  The processing of our client’s I-751 took several years.  In the meantime, our client had several arrests and other brushes with law enforcement which resulted in extended periods of incarceration by local law enforcement and ICE after our client’s immigration bond was revoked.  The firm worked with our client’s Virginia criminal defense attorney to fashion an immigration friendly plea.  Based on our client’s numerous brushes with law enforcement, the USCIS scrutinized our client’s I-751 application closely and requested numerous documents through a Notice of Intent to Deny (because USCIS asserted that our client’s marriage to his ex-wife was not bona fide) and a Request for Further Evidence (for documents related to our client’s arrests).  Regarding the Request for Further Evidence of our client’s arrests, the firm prepared a legal memorandum asserting that our client’s arrests and convictions had no bearing on the USCIS decision to approve or deny our client’s I-751.

Outcome:  Our client’s I-751 was granted on October 2, 2020.  The firm learned about the grant of residency on October 8, 2020 and after the firm made some phone calls to ICE, our client was released from ICE custody on October 9, 2020.

Comments:  Our client spent two years in local and ICE custody and his I-751 application was far from ordinary and it was a gratifying win for the firm and for our client.  Our client and his family were amazed and thrilled that he walked out of ICE custody with his permanent residency card.   The firm also advised our client that he was immediately eligible to apply for citizenship.

September 4, 2019

Facts: In September of 2016, a citizen of Guatemala came to the firm seeking help to apply for asylum.

The Firm’s Representation:  Our client was the victim of death threats after she tried to expose political corruption in her home town in Guatemala.  The firm believed that our client had a strong case for asylum based on persecution on account of her anti-corruption political opinion.  At trial, the government conceded that our client merited withholding of removal, but opposed a grant of asylum.  After taking testimony from our client, the immigration judge adhered to the government’s position and granted withholding of removal but denied the application for asylum.  The firm quickly convinced our client to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Outcome: On September 4, 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the decision of the immigration judge finding that our client had indeed met her burden to demonstrate that she was the victim of past persecution on account of her anti-corruption political opinion and remanded the case to make findings, if any, that the country conditions in Guatemala have changed to such an extent that would rebut a presumption of future persecution.

Comments:  This was an odd case because our client had what seemed like a very strong asylum claim based on exposing political corruption in her country and the firm was perplexed when the immigration judge denied the claim.  Thankfully, the Board of Immigration Appeal recognized the strength of our client’s claim and reversed the immigration judge’s decision.

September 3, 2019

Facts: In August of 2017, a citizen of Ecuador came to the firm seeking help with his Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) petition.

The Firm’s Representation: At first, the firm was concerned that we could not help our client since he had already turned 21 years of age, which is the cut-off age to obtain SIJS benefits. But, the firm learned that our client’s previous attorney had provided our client with horribly deficient legal representation – the previous attorney had obtained the custody order and filed the I-360 SIJS petition without the SIJS findings and despite repeated notices from USCIS for the SIJS findings, the previous attorney did nothing and allowed our client’s I-360 to be denied for abandonment and allowed our client to turn 21 years of age. The firm was outraged and accepted the representation.

First, the firm helped our client file a bar complaint against his previous attorney. Then the firm filed a motion in the Wicomico County Circuit Court to reopen our client’s custody case and asked the Wicomico County Circuit Court to make nunc pro tunc SIJS findings. After intense briefing on the issue of the court’s jurisdiction to make SIJS findings even though the minor turned 21 years of age, the Wicomico County Circuit Court made the nunc pro tunc SIJS findings.

Then, the firm filed an I-290 Motion for Reopen our client’s denied I-360 SIJS petition with USCIS and submitted the nunc pro tunc SIJS findings, even though the I-360 had been denied almost two years earlier. Unfortunately, the USCIS denied our motion to reopen as untimely. The firm then sued USCIS in federal court and asserted that USCIS abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

Outcome: On September 3, 2019, after two years of litigation in the Maryland State Courts, the USCIS and the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, USCIS granted our motion to reopen and granted our client’s I-360 SIJS visa. Our client can now apply for permanent residency which he plans to do right away.

Comments: This was an extremely gratifying case for the firm because we were able to salvage a case that did not seem salvageable at first, but the firm would not give up on our client’s case because we believed that our client had been tragically wronged by his previous attorney and we were determined to fix it if possible.

July 18, 2019

Facts: In August 2014, a citizen of El Salvador came to the firm seeking help with his asylum case in the Baltimore Immigration Court.

The Firm’s Representation: The firm believed that our client had a good claim of asylum based on a fear of persecution on account of an imputed political opinion where the persecutor was motivated by mixed motives of local politics and financial gain. Unfortunately, the Immigration Judge denied our client’s asylum application in November 2015. The firm advised our client to continue to fight for his rights and the Immigration Judge’s decision was appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Unfortunately, in November of 2016, the Board of Immigration Appeals denied our client’s asylum claim once again. Down but not done, the firm convinced our client to file a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Outcome: On June 6, 2017, the Fourth Circuit remanded our client’s case back to the Board of Immigration Appeals to re-consider our client’s direct appeal in light of the Fourth’s Circuit line of mixed-motive asylum case law.  On September 28, 2017, our client’s case was remanded from the Board of Immigration Appeal back to the Baltimore Immigration Court.  On July 18, 2019, our client was granted asylum.

Comments: The firm has won many cases on or after appeal. It may seem pointless to continue with your case in the face of repeated setbacks. But, the firm prides itself on fighting for our clients’ rights, no matter how long and how far, when we believe in merits of our clients’ cases.  Here, our client received asylum and his wife and children were able to apply for asylum as derivatives.

March 1, 2018

Facts: In early 2016, a citizen of El Salvador came to the firm seeking help for his minor child in removal proceedings.

The Firm’s Representation: The minor child had been abandoned by her mother in her home country in El Salvador, which would form a basis to seek Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) in the immigration system. The first step is to seek an order of custody (or guardianship) and an order for SIJS findings in the Maryland state courts. In this case, the Maryland state court judge granted custody and granted the SIJS order for the minor child, but refused to make any underlying SIJS factual findings. Such an order would not be sufficient to obtain SIJS benefits in the immigration system. The firm appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

Outcome: On March 1, 2018, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that the state court judge had a duty to make specific SIJS factual findings and remanded the matter back to the state court to make such findings.  The case was published as Martinez v. Sanchez, 180 A.3d 158, 159 (Md. Spec. App. 2018) and is widely cited as authority compelling Maryland state circuit court judges to make SIJS factual findings in custody and guardianship cases that request such findings.  On remand in our client’s case, the Maryland state court judge made the SIJS findings and the firm filed a self-petitioning I-360 SIJS visa petition on behalf of our client’s minor child.

February 6, 2018

Facts: In September of 2017, a citizen of El Salvador came to the firm seeking help to get her in absentia removal order reopened.

The Firm’s Representation: An immigration court will enter an in absentia order of removal when the respondent fails to show up for his or her court date. In absentia removal orders are often very difficult to reopen, and this case was no exception. After obtaining our client’s court file, we noticed that our client had been represented by a Texas attorney for two years prior to the date that our client received an in absentia order of removal. Yet, that attorney never contacted our client in the two years of his representation. The firm filed a motion to rescind/reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The motion was vigorously opposed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) who asserted that it was our client who was at fault, not her attorney. The firm responded with a reply brief asserted that the position taken by DHS was incorrect, that it was ultimately the duty of the attorney of record to take appropriate measures to make sure his or her clients are properly informed of their court dates.

Outcome: On February 6, 2018, the Immigration Judge granted our motion based on the finding that our client’s attorney of record was ineffective.

Comments: The firm does not take pleasure in filing motions to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. However, our duty is to our clients and we must zealously represent our client’s interests regardless of where that representation leads.