Recent Case Results

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.

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.

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.

February 20, 2013

Facts: A citizen of Guatemala had been convicted of two separate firearm possession offenses. He was arrested and placed in detention by ICE. He turned to the firm for help.

The Firm’s Representation: On January 23, 2013, the firm began its representation. Our client had a green card and had been a resident for many years and the relief of cancellation of removal is the one of the most generous reliefs available in the Immigration Court. Nevertheless, our client had two convictions for deportable offenses and numerous contacts with law enforcement. The firm quickly gathered evidence of positive equities, interviewed our client, interviewed witnesses and had our client’s case ready for trial on February 20, 2013, less than a month after retention.

Outcome: On February 20, 2013, our client was granted cancellation of removal and he was released from ICE detention the next day.