How do I become a citizen of the United States of America?
For most permanent residents, or green card holders, the process of getting citizenship is uncomplicated and does not require an attorney. If eligible, you file the appropriate paperwork and fees, get interviewed by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), take a test to determine English proficiency and knowledge of U.S. history and government, and receive a certificate of naturalization at an oath ceremony, sometimes on the same day as the interview.
Full disclosure of all relevant information is the key to success in getting your citizenship.
Here are the basic requirements for citizenship:
- You must be at least 18 years old
- You must have be a lawful permanent resident (have a green card) for at least five years (three years if married to a U.S. citizen)
- You must have good moral character for at least five years (three years if married to a U.S. citizen)
- You must be a continuous resident of the United States after you receive your green card (absences from the U.S. between six months and one year raise a presumption that continuous residence has been interrupted)
- You must be able to speak, read, and write the English language at a basic level (sometimes a waiver of this requirement may be available)
- You must pass a test on U.S. history and the U.S. government (sometimes a waiver of this requirement may be available)
- You must swear loyalty to the U.S. government
How do I know if I will have a problem getting my citizenship?
For some green card holders, the naturalization process can be tricky, especially when you have criminal convictions. In some instances, the naturalization process soon becomes a nightmare triggering not only a denial of the naturalization application, but also triggering deportation proceedings.
Keep in mind that USCIS will review your naturalization application and your entire immigration file very, very thoroughly. USCIS will review how you entered the country, how you got your green card, and review any interviews you gave under oath to USCIS. USCIS will review your criminal history based on your fingerprints. If USCIS finds a problem, your application could be denied. If the problem is serious, USCIS could refer your case to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to initiate deportation proceedings against you.
If you even think you might have a problem getting your citizenship, you should consult with an experienced immigration attorney beforehand. If you answer “yes” to any of the following questions, you should seek advice from an experienced immigration attorney before applying for citizenship:
- Since you received your green card, have you made any trips outside the U.S. that lasted more than six months?
- Since you received your green card, have you moved to a foreign country?
- Have you ever been deported/removed or ordered deported/removed?
- Are you currently in deportation or removal proceedings?
- Have you ever been convicted of any crimes?
- Was there any irregularity in the manner in which you received your green card?
- Did you ever tell a lie to any border patrol agent?
- Have you ever claimed that you were a United States citizen?
- Have you ever voted in any state or federal election?
- Have you ever helped anyone enter the United States illegally, even if it was a relative, even if you brought your child with you when you crossed the border illegally?
- Have you ever lied or committed fraud to receive public benefits?
- If you are male, did you register with Selective Service between the ages of 18 and 26?
- Have you ever failed to file your federal income taxes for any reason?
- If you have children, have you ever failed to provide child support for them?
- Have you ever committed adultery that ended up destroying your marriage?
- Have you ever made your living through illegal gambling?
- Have you ever engaged in prostitution?
- Have you ever been a habitual drunkard, drug abuser, or drug addict?
If you answered “yes” to any of the above questions, please consider reviewing you naturalization application with an experienced immigration attorney.
The following examples are cases where the naturalization application was denied:
Example #1. The Applicant filed for naturalization and disclosed a recent conviction. The conviction was not so serious to trigger deportation proceedings, but it was serious enough to warrant a denial of the naturalization application based on a lack of good moral character.
Example #2. The Applicant indicated that he had four children on his naturalization application. USCIS reviewed his file and discovered that he had only disclosed two children on his refugee application instead of four children (all the children were born prior to the refugee status). The Applicant did his best to explain the inconsistency, but USCIS ultimately concluded that he had provided misleading information and denied his application based on a lack of good moral character and that he obtained his refugee status and green card illegally.
Example #3. The Applicant failed to disclose an old conviction that the Applicant believed had been expunged. In fact, the conviction had been expunged, but USCIS ran an FBI background check which revealed the old conviction. Because the Applicant failed to disclose the conviction, USCIS concluded that the Applicant had provided misleading information which was deemed to be a lack of good moral character.
What happens if my naturalization application is denied?
If your naturalization application is denied, you can appeal the decision with the N-336, Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings. The firm specializes is naturalization denials. We have successfully obtained naturalization for our clients, despite the fact that their naturalization application was initially denied. However, there are some situations where an appeal of a naturalization application is not the best course of action, but you need an experienced attorney to help you determine what is the best course of action.
What can the Law Office of Timothy W. Davis do for you?
The firm will review your naturalization application with you and determine whether you should or should not apply for citizenship. If the firm believes that you will not have any problems with your naturalization application, you are free to use the firm to process your application or you may process the application yourself. In some cases, the firm may recommend that you apply for citizenship even though you have some problems. The firm has an excellent success rate with problematic naturalization applications. The firm’s legal fees for naturalization applications are competitively priced in the Baltimore-Washington D.C. area.
Related Cases
August 13, 2023 – Citizen of Nigeria is naturalized after appeal to USCIS
September 2, 2023
Facts: On September 7, 2022, a citizen of Nigeria came to the firm for help because USCIS had denied his naturalization application accusing our client of lying during his naturalization interview.
The Firm’s Representation: After talking with our client, the firm came to the conclusion that USCIS made a mistake and recommended that our client appeal the decision. After reviewing the evidence and taking an affidavit from our client and preparing a legal brief, the firm filed an N-336, Request for a Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings Under Section 336 later in mid-Setpember of 2022 (within the 33-day appeal deadline).
Outcome: On August 13, 2023, our client was naturalized as a U.S. citizen.
Comments: The employees of USCIS try to do their best, but they sometimes make mistakes. Here, the USCIS officer realized that a mistake had been made and took corrective action and granted the firm’s appeal and naturalized our client.
Citizen of Guatemala wins political asylum reversal from the Board of Immigration Appeals based on a claim of persecution for exposing political corruption in her home country
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.
Citizen of Ecuador has his I-360 Special Immigrant Juvenile Status visa approved through nunc pro tunc findings after turning 21 years of age
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.
Citizen of El Salvador is granted asylum after the case was remanded from the Fourth Circuit and the Board of Immigration Appeals
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.
Mandamus suit in federal court prompts USCIS to grant green card application for a citizen of El Salvador who was “waved through” the border
June 21, 2019
Facts: In early 2017, a citizen of El Salvador came to the firm seeking help to get a green card.
The Firm’s Representation: Our client was married to a U.S. citizen. Our client had been previously represented by a notario who had successfully obtained an approved I-130 family based petition, but the notario had told our client that she had to return to El Salvador to get an immigrant visa to return to the United States because she had entered the United States illegally. However, the firm asked the client to describe her entry into the United States and the firm determined that our client had been “waved through” the border which is a valid entry into the United States according to a case in the Board of Immigration Appeals entitled Matter of Quilantan, 25 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 2010). So, in April of 2017, the firm filed our client’s I-485 application for permanent residency based on the approved I-130 from her U.S. citizen spouse and the “wave through”. The firm attended an interview with USCIS, but USCIS would not make a decision on the case, even after two years of waiting. In April of 2019, our client was tired of waiting and engaged the firm to file a mandamus in federal court to compel USCIS to make a decision on our client’s I-485 green card application.
Outcome: On June 21, 2019, USCIS granted our client’s green card application. The client was needless to say overjoyed and celebrated July 4th as newly minted permanent resident of the United States.
Anne Arundel County District Court grants coram nobis relief to citizen of Mexico
January 3, 2018
Facts: In early 2017, a citizen of Mexico came to the firm seeking help from being deported.
The Firm’s Representation: Our client had been placed in removal proceedings. However, he had resided in the United States for over 20 years and he had two U.S. citizen children, which made him eligible for cancellation of removal for certain non-permanent residents pursuant to INA 240A(b). The problem was that our client had a conviction for the Maryland offense of identity theft. Most likely, such a conviction would have made our client ineligible for cancellation of removal. Our client stated to the firm that he had been advised by an immigration attorney that a conviction for the Maryland offense of identity theft would not affect his immigration status. The firm disagreed and recommended that our client file a coram nobis in the criminal court. The firm recognized that our client should never have taken a guilty plea because the evidence was insufficient to sustain the charge to theft. Meanwhile, in the immigration court, our client’s eligibility for cancellation of removal was being questioned by the immigration judge who requested briefing on the issue from the firm.
Outcome: On January 3, 2018, the Anne Arundel County District Court granted the coram nobis petition and vacated our client’s conviction for the Maryland offense of identity theft. Instead of briefing the issue in the immigration court, the firm simply filed a copy of the order from the criminal court and asserted that our client was now eligible to move forward on his application for cancellation of removal for certain non-permanent residents pursuant to INA 240A(b) since he had no conviction at all. Hopefully, with the firm’s help, our client will obtain his permanent residency in the not too distant future.
Citizen of El Salvador was granted U.S. citizenship after three and half years of litigation
September 9, 2017
Facts: In early 2014, a citizen of El Salvador came to the firm seeking help to get his citizenship.
The Firm’s Representation: Our client had been a green card holder for 27 years, but he had been convicted of two counts of Maryland theft in 1996 and 1997. Understandably, our client was nervous about applying for naturalization. In 2014, those theft convictions were considered “aggravated felony” theft convictions and precluded naturalization. So, the firm filed coram nobis petitions for each of his theft convictions in the Maryland state court. Unfortunately, the coram nobis petitions were denied but the firm appealed. During the appellate process, the immigration case law changed such that Maryland theft was no longer being considered an “aggravated felony” theft conviction. So, the firm asked the appellate court to stay the appeal while our client applied for naturalization. Despite extensive legal briefing, our client’s naturalization application was denied. The firm appealed the denial of the naturalization application by filing an N-336 Request for a Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings (Under Section 336 of the INA). The firm included additional briefing based on a recent case that had been decided in the Supreme Court, Mathis v. U.S., 136 S. Ct. 2243, 2247 (2016), that supported our client’s position.
Outcome: On September 9, 2017, our client was sworn in as a citizen of the United States.
Comments: This case was a very gratifying win for the firm because it was such a hard-won fight. The firm believed that our client deserved citizenship and both the firm and our client never gave up, despite the numerous setbacks.
Citizen of Guatemala receives I-601A Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver
December 16, 2016
Facts: In December 2015, a citizen of Guatemala came to the firm seeking a pathway to getting a green card. The citizen of Guatemala was married to a United States citizen spouse, but the citizen of Guatemala had entered the United States illegally and therefore he could not get a green card here in the United States – he had to travel back to Guatemala and return with an immigrant visa.
The Firm’s Representation: A non-citizen who enters the United States illegally generally cannot get a green card here in the United States – illegal entry is a bar to adjusting status to that of a lawful permanent resident. In such cases, the only way to get a green card is to apply for an immigrant visa at an embassy in the non-citizen’s home country, then travel to that country, then attend the interview at the embassy, then receive a determination of inadmissibility based on illegal presence in the United States, and then apply for a waiver which may take two years to adjudicate. However, President Obama initiated a program called the Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver which allows the pre-processing of an unlawful presence waiver here in the United States, before the non-citizen travels to his or her country of origin. The firm takes an individualized approach with every Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver to make sure that the waiver application has the best opportunity to be approved. This individualized approach has served the firm well because so far the firm has never had a Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver denied. In our client’s case, the firm dug deep into the client’s background and the background of his spouse to find the necessary evidence for extreme hardship, the key requirement for a Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver.
Outcome: The firm’s individualized approach worked to perfection again and our client from Guatemala was granted a Provisional Unlawful presence Waiver on December 16, 2016. Our client can now start the final step in the green card process by applying for his visa with the United States Embassy in Guatemala City, Guatemala.
Citizen of Cambodia receives INA 212(c) relief, seventeen years after he was unjustly deemed ineligible for such relief
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.
El Salvadoran refugees of gang violence granted asylum
February 22, 2016
Facts: In 2013, a citizen of El Salvador and her child and her brother came to the firm seeking help.
The Firm’s Representation: Our client’s partner testified against gang members at a murder trial in El Salvador. Prior to the trial, the gang members tried to intimidate the witness by threatening the witness’ girlfriend (our client), and her child and her brother. The El Salvador police could not protect our client or her family and as a result they fled El Salvador and came to the United States looking for safe refuge. In jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which includes the Baltimore Immigration Court, family members who have been threatened or harmed merely because of their social status as family members are an asylum-based protected group. Here, our client and her child and her brother were threatened by gangs for no other reason than their familial relationship to the witness (our client’s partner), which is a recognized social group under Fourth Circuit case law.
Outcome: On February 22, 2016, our client, her son, and her brother were all granted asylum protection in the Baltimore Immigration Court.
After near deportation, citizen of El Salvador enters the United States with a green card
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.
Citizen of India receives U.S. citizenship with theft conviction
August 21, 2015
Facts: In March 2014, a citizen of India sought a second opinion on his ability to naturalize even though he had a theft conviction.
The Firm’s Representation: This case should not have been difficult. The difficulty for the firm was that our client had received an opinion from a highly respected and high experienced immigration attorney that our client should under no circumstances attempt to naturalize. The prior immigration attorney had warned our client that if he tried to naturalize, he would be denied and placed in removal proceedings and deported. After quite a lot of discussion, the firm convinced our client that this prior advice was incorrect and the firm advised our client to file an application for naturalization, which the firm did. Making matters worse, our client’s interviewing officer at USCIS was a recent transfer from California and was not familiar with Maryland law. The firm received two disturbing Requests for Further Evidence (RFE) from USCIS. The firm responded to the RFEs and patiently explained to USCIS that our client was indeed eligible for naturalization. Nevertheless, our client was nervous the entire time, based on the initial advice from his prior immigration attorney and based on the RFEs from USCIS.
Outcome: On August 21, 2015, our client became a citizen of the United States.
Citizen of Yemen obtains citizenship after successful coram nobis petition
May 15, 2015
Facts: In January 2013, a citizen of Yemen entered the United States and was stopped at the border and placed in secondary inspection. Even though the citizen of Yemen had a green card, he had an 16-year old conviction for the Maryland offense of second degree assault. Border patrol released the citizen of Yemen, but he was shaken nevertheless. He sought the firm’s help.
The Firm’s Representation: In 2013, the Maryland offense of second degree assault was potentially an aggravated felony under the INA. In our client’s case, he had been sentenced to 18 months incarceration, which could have triggered an “aggravated felony” classification. The firm had no choice but to seek a belated sentence reduction by way of a coram nobis petition. Luckily, our client had no further brushes with law enforcement which always helps. The coram nobis petition was granted and our client received a probation before judgment. The firm subsequently filed an application for naturalization.
Outcome: Our client is now a citizen of the United States. This case ended up being one the most gratifying cases the firm has ever worked on. When our client first approach us, he was in medical school. Eventually, our client was approaching graduation from medical school and he was applying for residency positions. Even though our client was at the top of his class in a prestigious medical school, his conviction for second degree assault was hindering any residency program from offering him a position. After our client’s assault conviction was re-sentenced as a probation before judgment, the firm received a call from our client. He asked whether he had to indicate on his residency applications that he had a conviction. The firm told our client that, under Maryland law, a probation before judgment cannot be considered a conviction for any purpose (although for immigration purposes, a probation before judgement still remains a conviction). So, our client started sending out his residency applications that indicated that he had no convictions and subsequently residency offers started pouring in. Our client eventually accepted a residency position at prestigious hospital in Baltimore, Maryland and he is on his way to becoming a full-fledged medical doctor. Everybody makes mistakes and everyone deserves a second chance. The firm was really happy to be able to help our client reach his goals.
Citizen of Guatemala retains his green card with a 212(h) waiver
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.
Citizen of Portugal and Mexico granted citizenship by operation of law
December 29, 2014
Facts: In January 2014, a citizen of Portugal entered the United States on the Visa Waiver Program and came to the firm because she thought she might be a citizen of the United States.
The Firm’s Representation: Citizenship by operation of law can be very tricky, especially in this case. In this case, our client’s father was a Portuguese national who came to the United States as a child and later naturalized before our client was born. While in Mexico, our client’s father had a child – our client – with a Mexican woman, but they were not married. They eventually got married about 20 years later, in Portugal. Our client was actually born in Mexico, but obtained Portuguese citizenship when she was a teenager. Luckily, that process included documentation from our client’s father that professed financial support and paternity of our client, all of which occurred before our client turned 18 years of age.
Outcome: On December 29, 2014, our client was given a certificate of U.S. citizenship.
Citizen of El Salvador’s Temporary Protected Status is reopened after being closed for over 10 years
July 10, 2014
Facts: In 2001, a citizen of El Salvador applied for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). In 2004, the El Salvadoran citizen’s TPS renewal application was denied. The El Salvadoran citizen tried several times to have the case reopened with no luck. In 2013, the citizen of El Salvador came to the firm for help.
The Firm’s Representation: Reopening TPS cases can be very tricky and every case is different. Nevertheless, the firm has had quite a bit of success reopening old TPS denial cases. In many cases, the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied TPS applications when the applicant failed to attend a biometrics (fingerprinting) appointment or when the applicant failed to respond to a notice. In our client’s case, INS denied our client’s TPS application because she missed a biometrics appointment. However, the firm discovered paperwork that our client did not miss the appointment and that it was possible that INS made a mistake. The argument for reopening at that point was straight forward. The adjudication process of reopening TPS cases with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) takes quite a while, typically about a year.
Outcome: On July 10, 2014, our client’s TPS application was reopened. The firm is in the process of helping our client apply for a work permit again, over ten years after her last one was approved.
Citizen of Guatemala receives green card based on Special Immigrant Juvenile Status
March 31, 2014
Facts: On March 9, 2013, a citizen of Guatemala was in deportation proceedings. He came to the firm for help.
The Firm’s Representation: Our client was a minor. In addition, our client’s father had abandoned him when he was nine years old. The firm quickly realized that he could qualify for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS). SIJS is a three step process. First, a guardian for the minor must be appointed in the state court, and the state court must make special findings. Essentially, the state court must make a special finding (1) that the minor was subjected to abuse, neglect or abandonment by one or both parents and (2) that it is not in the best interest of the child to be returned to his home country. Once guardianship and the special finding have been made, the minor can self-petition for a visa with USCIS. The last step is that the minor can apply for a green card with USCIS. Our client was only two weeks away from turning 18 years old and the firm had to act quickly because the Maryland state courts have guardianship jurisdiction until the minor turns 18 years old. The firm expedited the guardianship proceedings and obtained the guardianship and special findings prior to our client turning 18. Then the firm filed our client’s self-petition, which was granted.
Outcome: On March 31, 2014, our client received his green card.
Citizen of El Salvador is granted a green card through NACARA after being voluntarily placed in removal proceedings
March 12, 2013
Facts: In September 2012, a citizen of El Salvador was desperate to get his green card. He had been in the United States for nearly 25 years. He was eligible for NACARA (Nicaraguan And Central American Relief Act), but he could not apply to USCIS to get his green card. His previous attorney billed him thousands of dollars, but ultimately, the attorney did nothing for the citizen of El Salvador. The citizen of El Salvador sought the firm’s help.
The Firm’s Representation: The firm first analyzed whether there was any relief available for our client. The form realized that our client was eligible for NACARA. However, our client never applied for asylum. Because our client never applied for asylum, USCIS did not have jurisdiction over his NACARA application. Only the Immigration Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate his NACARA application. The firm told our client that he had to be placed in removal proceedings to get a green card. Of course, our client was very concerned about being placed in removal proceedings, but the firm assured him that everything would be okay. The firm placed our client in removal proceedings. The firm attended one status hearing with our client in the Immigration Court in January 2013, whereupon a final hearing was set for March 12, 2013.
Outcome: On March 12, 2013, our client was granted NACARA special rule cancellation of removal and granted a green card.
Citizen of Sierra Leone wins CAT protection based on sexual orientation despite three “aggravated felony” convictions
March 11, 2013
Facts: A citizen of Sierra Leone was placed in removal proceedings and charged as an “aggravated felon.” His family came to the firm for help.
The Firm’s Representation: The firm took our client’s case and discovered that our client had a viable claim under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The firm asserted that our client would be harmed in his home country of Sierra Leone based on his sexual orientation.
Outcome: Based on the firm’s extensive documentation and testimony from an country conditions expert, on March 11, 2013, the Immigration Judge granted our client CAT protection. Our client is awaiting a decision by DHS whether to appeal the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals.