Category: Deportation Defense

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.

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.

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.

July 29, 2016

Facts: In 2001, a citizen of El Salvador was physically deported based on a conviction for the Maryland offense of second degree rape by the legacy agency INS. INS deported the citizen of El Salvador despite the fact that the conviction had been reduced to third degree sex offense. Approximately two years later, the citizen of El Salvador illegally returned to the United States. In December 2015, he was picked up by DHS. After he was picked up by DHS, the family of the citizen of El Salvador contacted the firm.

The Firm’s Representation: Our client’s case was one of the most complex cases that the firm has ever handled. The firm initially sought to have our client’s original deportation order rescinded so that our client could be placed in removal proceedings and apply for permanent residency with an INA 212(h) waiver. The firm filed a motion to reopen the INA 238(b) removal order with DHS. However, almost immediately, DHS turned our client over to the U.S. Marshal’s office for a federal prosecution for illegal reentry after deportation for an aggravated felony. The firm worked with the Office of the Federal Public Defender, who represented our client in federal our court, as much as possible. After a year long court battle, the amazing OFPD prevailed and the illegal reentry charges were dismissed because the government had violated the due process rights of our client when he was deported based on an erroneous criminal conviction. Tellingly, DHS did not try to re-instate the flawed 2001 removal order. Instead, DHS placed our client into fresh removal proceedings. Most troubling to the firm was the fact that Notice To Appear, the DHS charging document, alleged that our client was inadmissible for illegal reentry after deportation and/or illegal presence in the United States pursuant to INA § 212(a)(9)(A)(ii), INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), or INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(II). These grounds of inadmissibility would have blocked any attempt by our client to become a permanent resident here in the United States. To address these allegations by DHS, the firm asserted to the Immigration Court that it had the authority to collaterally attack our client’s prior removal order upon a showing of a “gross miscarriage of justice.” The firm further asserted that our client never had an opportunity to apply for relief from removal (adjustment of status based on marriage to a permanent resident) in 2001 and 2002, and if he had had that opportunity, he would have been granted permanent residency and he would never have been deported. The firm further asserted that if our client had not been deported and instead had been granted permanent residency, he would never have illegally reentered the United States. The firm asked the Immigration Court to place our client in the the position that would have had in 2001 with an opportunity to apply for relief from removal by applying for permanent residency through marriage to a permanent resident, who now is a U.S. citizen.

Outcome: On July 29, 2016, the Immigration Court agreed with the firm’s position and our client was granted permanent residency with an INA 212(h) waiver. The Immigration Court did not sustain the illegal reentry charges of inadmissibility. Ten days later, DHS decided that it would not appeal the decision and our client was released from DHS detention. All together, our client had been detained by the U.S. Marshals and DHS for nearly two years. Needless to say, our client and his family was extremely happy with the outcome.

March 31, 2016

Facts: Last year, the firm reported that our client’s removal proceedings had been reopened, sixteen years after our client had been unjustly deemed ineligible for INA 212(c) relief and ordered removed.

The Firm’s Representation: After our client’s case was reopened, venue for the removal proceedings was moved to the Charlotte, North Carolina Immigration Court, near where our client resided. Our client demanded that the firm continue to represent him and the firm agreed that we were in the best position to represent our client moving forward. The firm made the final preparations for our client’s INA 212(c) application for relief and represented our client at his individual hearing on relief in the Charlotte, North Carolina Immigration Court.

Outcome: On March 31, 2016, our client was finally granted INA 212(c) relief, nearly seventeen years after our client had been unjustly deemed ineligible for such relief. Our client was once again a lawful permanent resident. Needless to say, our client was extremely happy with the outcome.

Comment: Our client was a citizen of Cambodia, a country that refused to issue our client a travel document to return to Cambodia after he had been ordered removed to Cambodia. Had Cambodia issued our client a travel document, our client would have been physically deported years ago. Our client was lucky, but sadly thousands of green card holders were deported by a United States immigration system that obstinately and unjustly denied their legal right to apply for INA 212(c) relief, a relief that would have provided these green card holders a chance to retain their legal status and remain in the United States.

January 28, 2016

Facts: In early 2013, a citizen of El Salvador came to the firm seeking a solution to his immigration problems.

The Firm’s Representation: This case was one of the most difficult cases that the firm has ever handled because the initial outlook for the case was not good at all. In early 2013, our client and his U.S. citizen wife approached the firm to see what could be done. Our client had an in absentia removal order from 2005 from when he crossed the U.S. border and was placed in removal proceedings but failed to attend his immigration court hearing. In addition, our client had two DUI convictions. There was no way to reopen our client’s case through the immigration court. So, the firm petitioned Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to join a motion to reopen. Concurrently, the firm submitted a family based I-130 petition to USCIS. The firm knew that reopening with ICE would be dicey with the DUI convictions. In addition, at that time ICE had a stated policy that it would not join motions to reopen so that non-citizens could pursue the Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver. The firm filed the joint motion request in May of 2013. The request was denied in December 2013. The firm persisted with ICE and asked for a re-examination of the request in January 2014. Several weeks later, ICE detained our client in order to physically deport him. The firm worked fast and filed a stay of removal with ICE which was granted several days later. Fortunately, in August 2014, ICE agreed to reopen and terminate our client’s removal order. Once the removal order was terminated and the I-130 petition was granted, the firm filed an I-601A waiver for our client, which was granted on April 1, 2015. Then, the firm then processed our client’s immigrant visa at the U.S. Embassy in San Salvador, El Salvador.

Outcome: On January 28, 2016, three years after the firm started the representation, our client entered the United States with his immigrant visa.

June 10, 2015

Facts: Last year, two citizens of Cambodia approached the firm to see whether the firm could reopen their deportation orders from the mid 1990s. Both of our clients had serious criminal convictions that made them deportable as “aggravated felons” under the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

The Firm’s Representation: After receiving the results of the FOIA requests, the firm discovered that both of the citizens of Cambodia had been denied the opportunity to seek INA 212(c) relief in their deportation cases. The firm believed that reopening was possible based on the recent Supreme Court cases of Judulang v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 476 (2011) and Vartelas v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 1479 (2012), which broadened the availability of INA 212(c) relief. In February, 2014, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued its decision in Matter of Abdelghany, 26 I&N Dec. 254 (BIA 2014), which cemented the Supreme Court decisions in the immigration removal system. The biggest challenge that the firm faced in reopening the cases was demonstrating that our clients were eligible for INA 212(c) relief and that they would merit relief as a matter of discretion.

Outcome: Both of our clients’ motions to reopen were granted by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Our clients were lucky because the Cambodia is not accepting criminal deportees from the United States and our clients were permitted to remain in the United States for many, many years after their deportation orders were final. Now, our clients will have the chance to get their green cards back.

February 23, 2015

Facts: In July 2012, a citizen of Guatemala entered the United States and was stopped at the border and placed in secondary inspection. Even though the citizen of Guatemala had a green card, he had several convictions for theft and he was inadmissible to enter the United States. He was placed in removal proceedings and came to the firm for help.

The Firm’s Representation: Our client walked into the firm’s office for a consultation at 5:00 pm. After reviewing our client’s criminal history, it was discovered that our client had a theft conviction and a one year suspended sentence, which in the immigration context is an aggravated felony. Further review showed that our client had walked into the the firm’s office on exactly the 90th day after he was sentenced for his theft conviction. In Maryland, criminal defendants have 90 days to file a motion to reconsider the sentence. In this case, we needed to reduce our client’s sentence by one day to 364 days or less, but the court had already closed for the day. The firm called a colleague in Montgomery County who stated that the court had an after hours drop box. The firm quickly drafted a motion to reconsider sentence and emailed the motion to the firm’s colleague who agreed to deposit our client’s motion in the after hours drop-box for the Montgomery County Circuit Court. What luck! Several months later, the motion was granted and our client’s sentence was reduced to 360 days. The sentence reduction paved the way for our client to seek an INA 212(h) waiver in the Immigration Court. Our client did the personal work to keep himself out of trouble and the firm did the rest.

Outcome: Our client was granted an INA 212(h) waiver and he was able to retain his green card. In a few years, our client can apply for naturalization.

April 14, 2014

Facts: On May 28, 2013, a citizen of El Salvador was ordered deported by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) according to a final administrative order of removal. The family of the citizen of El Salvador came to the firm for help.

The Firm’s Representation: Our client had a conviction for fourth degree sex offense in Maryland. DHS alleged that the conviction was an aggravated felony, sex abuse of a minor. Immediately, the firm contacted DHS and demanded to file a rebuttal to DHS’s allegations. DHS also refused to turn over the conviction records upon which it made its aggravated felony determination. However, after consulting with their attorneys, DHS relented and turned over the records for inspection by the firm and permitted the firm to file a rebuttal. The firm wrote a rebuttal within several days and submitted it to DHS. DHS refused to change their position and ordered our client removed. The firm filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit). Unfortunately, the firm could not stop our client’s physical deportation because the prevailing case law of the Fourth Circuit for stays does not permit a stay of deportation for circumstances such as our client’s circumstances. After filing the opening brief in the Fourth Circuit, the attorneys for the government realized that the DHS’s position was untenable. DHS was forced to rescind the final administrative removal order. The firm then began the process of getting our client returned to the United States. After some reluctance, DHS issued our client a parole document so he could return to the United States. On April 14, 2014, our client returned to the United States.

Outcome: Our client’s case was decided by the U.S. Immigration Court in Baltimore, Maryland. Our client can seek the relief of Temporary Protected Status (TPS). On June 3, 2014, the Immigration Judge re-instated our client’s TPS and our client was released from ICE detention later that day.