Recent Case Results

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

October 1, 2013

Facts: In January 2012, a citizen of Mexico was detained by ICE – he had no status and a conviction for Maryland fourth degree sex offense. The citizen of Mexico consulted with several very reputable immigration attorneys who all stated that there was nothing they could do for the citizen of Mexico. The citizen of Mexico’s family continued looking for a lawyer and they finally found our law firm.

The Firm’s Representation: The firm first analyzed whether there was any relief available for our client. Our client had lived in the United States for over thirteen years and he had a U.S. citizen wife and three U.S. citizen children. One of our client’s children was very sick. The firm analyzed whether our client was eligible for cancellation of removal, which has very strict eligibility rules regarding criminal convictions. Despite our client’s conviction, the firm realized that our client was eligible for cancellation of removal because his sex offense conviction could be categorized as a petty crime under the crimes involving moral turpitude statute. The firm prepared our client’s case for trial in December 2012 – the firmed filed a mountain of hardship evidence and a written brief on eligibility for cancellation of removal. The hearing went very well, but the Immigration Judge could not issue a decision because the cancellation of removal visas had already been exhausted for the 2013 fiscal year. The Immigration Judge scheduled a hearing for October 1, 2013, the first day of the next fiscal year.

Outcome: The Immigration Judge had written his decision months earlier and had the decision entered on October 1, 2013. The Immigration Judge granted the relief and now our client can now get his green card.

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.

June 11, 2013

Facts: A citizen of Jamaica was detained by ICE in May of 2012 based on numerous drug-related convictions, the most serious of which was a conviction for possession with the intent to distribute (PWID) marijuana. His family came to the firm for help.

The Firm’s Representation:At first review of our client’s case, the outlook was bleak. DHS had charged our client with an “aggravated felony” for drug trafficking based on our client’s conviction for PWID marijuana. However, during the course of our client’s removal proceedings, on April 23, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Moncrieffe v. Holder, which held that certain convictions for PWID marijuana may, in some cases, not be “aggravated felonies.” The firm submitted a brief to the Immigration Court that asserted that Moncrieffe v. Holder was directly applicable to our client’s Maryland conviction for PWID marijuana and thus our client’s conviction for PWID marijuana was not an “aggravated felony.” DHS agreed and dropped the “aggravated felony” charge of removability. At that point, our client could proceed with his application for cancellation of removal.

Outcome: On June 11, 2013, the Immigration Judge granted our client’s application for cancellation of removal. Our client was released from ICE custody several hours later.