Recent Case Results

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.