Motions to Reopen

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, 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.

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.

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.

August 12, 2013

Facts: A citizen of El Salvador was detained by ICE – he had no status and a conviction for possession of marijuana. He hired a very reputable immigration attorney. Nevertheless, the immigration attorney did not know how to deal with a Maryland conviction for possession of marijuana. The Immigration Attorney asked the Immigration Court to grant the citizen of El Salvador voluntary departure, which was granted on May 1, 2013. The citizen of El Salvador’s family was frantic because they did not want him to be deported. The family came to the firm on May 15, 2013.

The Firm’s Representation: First, jumped into action an filed a coram nobis petition in the Maryland state court. Second, the firm filed a motion to reopen and a stay of deportation with the Immigration Court. Time was ticking because ICE wanted to physically deport our client. After several phone calls to the Immigration Court clerks, the stay was granted. Two days later, the detention center asked our client to pack his belongings because he was on the deportation list for the day. Even though the firm had previously contacted ICE and informed them of the stay, the detention center had not received notice. After several further phone calls, our client was taken off the deportation list. The firm had stopped our client’s deportation with only two days to spare. After a hearing on July 26, 2013, our client’s coram nobis petition was granted. The firm then filed a joint motion to reopen and a joint motion for bond in the Immigration Court, with the permission of ICE, and our client was released from ICE custody on $3,000.00 bond on August 12, 2013.

Outcome: Our client lost everything when he pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana – he lost his TPS status, he was placed in removal proceedings, he was detained, and he was almost deported. Tragically, our client was completely innocent of these charges which was borne out on postconviction. Our client is now in the process of getting his TPS back and possibly seeking cancellation of removal in the Immigration Court.

May 2, 2013

Facts: A citizen of El Salvador was detained detained by ICE on May 8, 2012 and ordered deported on December 3, 2012. His fiance came to the firm for help.

The Firm’s Representation: First, the firm had to reopen our client’s immigration case. In early January 2013, the firm filed a motion to reopen with the Immigration Court, which was eventually granted. Then, the firm reviewed the underlying reason for the ICE detention – our client’s conviction for sex offense in the fourth degree. Unfortunately, our client had received really bad advice from his criminal defense attorney who advised our client to decline an offer of Probation Before Judgment from the sentencing judge. After analyzing the conviction and sentencing, the firm came to the realization that if our client had accepted the Probation Before Judgment, he would not have been subject to mandatory detention in the immigration context. The firm immediately filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court of Maryland.

Outcome: On April 22, 2013, the post-conviction petition was granted. On May 2, 2013, based on a motion for reconsideration of bond in the Immigration Court, bond was granted and our client was released from ICE custody later that same day. Naturally, our client and his family were thrilled to be released after almost one year of detention that was caused by bad advice from his criminal defense attorney. Our client’s immigration case remains pending in the Immigration Court, but our client now had several options available to him to get into a legal status.