Cancellation of Removal Application Approved for Permanent Resident Detained in York County Prison

We successfully represented a client in removal proceedings at York County Prison as the Immigration Judge granted the Application for Cancellation of Removal that we had filed on his behalf.  Our client , a Mexican National, had been a United States Permanent Resident for 15 years since the age of 13.  He was the primary financial provider for his mother who was disabled and unable to work because of a back injury.  He also had two United States Citizen Children to whom he provided financial support and who he had a close relationship with as he had partical physical custody of the children.  Our client had problem with drugs and had two simple possession convictions along with a pending simple possession charge at the time he was detained by Immigration.  Our client also had multiple traffic violations as he had to drive without a licnense in order to work to be able to support his family.  While our client was in York Prison we worked to resolve his pending simple possession charge and prepared detailed evidence in support of his Application for Cancellation of Removal.  We traveled to York Prison to prepare our client for his testimony at trial and attend the trial at York Prison.  Our client testified to the Immigration Judge about his drug problem and what he had done to change his life so that he would not use drugs ever again.  Our client also testified to the Immigration Judge about everything he did for his mother and children and the hardship they would suffer if he were deported to Mexico.  Despite objections from the attorney for the Department of Homeland Security, the Immigration Judge granted our client's Application for Cancellation of Removal and permitted him to remain in the United States as a Permanent Resident.  The case was not appealed and our client was released from prison the day after the trial.  The family and our client were so happy and grateful that he was able to remain in the United States.

Relief from Removal Proceedings Granted by Immigration Judge Based Upon Renewed I-751 Petition

Our client had received a condition 2 year green card based upon his marriage to a United States Citizen.  Our client had jointly filed an I-751 Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence with his spouse and an interview had been scheduled at a local USCIS office with regard to the I-751 Petition.  Due to an address change our client and spouse had missed the I-751 interview, the I-751 Petition was denied, and our client was placed into removal proceedings.  We requested relief from removal proceedings by renewing his I-751 Petition before the Immigration Judge.  Our client's marriage was bona fide and he was still residing with his spouse.  We provided the Immigration Judge with extensive documentary evidence of the bona fide nature of the marital relationship including Affidavits from friends/family members and had those individuals who had written Affidavits attend court the day of the Individual Hearing.  Following testimony the Immigration Judge granted our client relief from removal proceedings without objection from counsel for the Department of Homeland Security.

Motion to Reopen Removal Proceedings Granted by Immigration Judge

Our client is married to a United States Citizen who filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative on his behalf.  He simultaneously filed an I-485 Adjustment of Status Application with the I-130 Petition.  Our client and his wife experienced marital difficulty and she withdrew the I-130 Petition.  Our client was placed in removal proceedings and requested voluntary departure from the Immigration Judge which was granted.  Our client and his wife were never divorced and did everything possible to reconcile their marital difficulties.  Our client and his wife did in fact reconcile their marital difficulties and she filed a new I-130 Petition for Alien Relative on his behalf.  Following the filing of the new I-130 Petition our law firm filed a Motion to Reopen our client's removal proceedings within 90 days of the voluntary departure grant.  The removal proceedings were reopened by the Immigration Judge and a new Master Calendar Hearing scheduled.

Asylum Granted in Removal Proceedings to Nigerian Citizen who feared Femal Genital Mutilation (FGM) if forced to return to her home country

Philadelphia Immigration Lawyer Marco Pignone successfully represented a Nigerian Citizen in removal proceedings before the Philadelphia Executive Office for Immigration Review in a claim for asylum.  Our client had come to the United States with her family as a child.  Her mother, along with other family members, had been forced to undergo female genital mutilation (FGM) in Nigeria.  Our client had never undergone the procedure but feared that she would be forced by her tribe (the IBO tribe) to undergo FGM if she was forced to return to Nigeria.  Our client had been included as a derivative in her mother's asylum application in the early 1990s and we used this fact to successfuly establish an exception to the 1 year filing deadline for asylum on the basis that her prior attorney had failed to advise her of the need to file her own independent asylum application when she turned 21 because at that point she could no longer be included as a derivative in her mother's application.  We also successfuly argued to the Immigration Judge that our client could not safely relocate anywhere in Nigeria to avoid persecution.  Following detailed testimony from multiple witnesses including a Chief and Enze of the IBO tribe, and a review of substantial evidence, the Immigration Judge granted our client asylum and the Department of Homeland Security did not appeal the Judge's grant.

U Visas Approved for Client and Family

The U visa was designed to provide immigration status to the victims of particularly severe crimes.  As many lawyers remain unaware of this visa, it has been utilized infrequently.  My client was smuggled to the United States in the late 1990s in a cargo container on a large shipping boat.  Many other immigrants were smuggled on the ship, also in cargo containers, and made the voyage from China with little food, water, and without sunlight.  Two of the immigrants died during the voyage as a result of the inhuman conditions. The coast guard stopped the ship as it approached the port in Seattle where it intended to dock, and my client's smuggler was arrested and turned over to the authorities.  The U.S. Attorney's office prosecuted my client's smuggler and relied, in part, on the statements provided by my client and other immigrants who were willing to testify regarding the conditions on the ship that caused the deaths.  My client came to my office a few years ago, and showed me a single business card from an agent in the "Anti-Smuggling Division" of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (The former agency which was rolled into the Department of Homeland Security after 9/11) and told me his story.  As the U visa was almost entirely unknown at the time, it took me many months of writing letters and making phone calls to various government agencies as none wanted to accept responsibility for the filing of the U visa application.  Unfortunately, the U visa requires that certain government agents actually sign the petition itself, so the victim of a crime, in this case alien smuggling, is unable to self-petition for a U visa.  I spent many months writing and calling the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Attorney's Office, the FBI (at the direction of the U.S. Attorney), and eventually was able to speak directly to the head of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Seattle himself.  He agreed to help me and asked me to write a letter to him explaining the process and filling out the necessary forms for his office. I recently received approval notices for my client's U visa, for his wife, and for his children.  His wife and children who currently live in China will be permitted to come to the United States and are awaiting interviews at their consulate.  The entire family will be eligible to file green card applications after being in U visa status for 3 full years.  After his family arrives in the U.S. I intend to file a motion to reopen and terminate my client's old deportation case in immigration court so that his record will no longer indicate that he has been ordered deported from the U.S.

I-601 Waiver Approved at Lithuanian Consulate

Our client left the U.S. a few years ago after overstaying her visa for more than one year.  Overstaying for more than one year caused her to be inadmissible to the U.S. because persons with more than one year of "unlawful presence" are not allowed to reenter the country for 10 years unless they are eligible for and are granted a "waiver," essentially meaning that their previous immigration violation is forgiven.  Many immigrants who were in the U.S. illegally and who were later ordered removed/deported, or who simply left the U.S. voluntarily after accumulating more than one year of "unlawful presence" are never permitted to return to the country.  The legal standard for such waivers is "extreme hardship" to a U.S. citizen spouse or child and while one would think that any spouse or child of an immigrant would experience "extreme hardship"as a result of being separated from their spouse or mother, various court cases have established that separation alone does not meet the standard. Our client married a U.S. citizen who she had met while she was living in the U.S.  He had suffered from a heart condition and had been treated at the University of Pennsylvania's Children's Hospital (CHOP).  I obtained a significant amount of documentation regarding his medical condition including his complete medical records, and found numerous articles from credible sources that explained the causes, treatments, and prognosis for his particular medical condition.  Combined with detailed affidavits of both our client and her husband as well as other evidence, the USCIS Office in Moscow granted our application for a waiver of our client's "unlawful presence."  We have been informed that she will likely be scheduled for a second interview to receive her immigrant visa within two weeks. Many immigrants think that it is impossible to return to the U.S. after leaving the country due to a previous immigration violation, but with careful preparation and the right set of circumstances, waivers may be approved even where the facts are less compelling than in this case.

Bond Redetermination Motion Granted

A client of ours who is a permanent resident was detained and placed into removal proceedings due to a conviction for possession of an illegal firearm.  He was incarcerated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement who set a $15,000 bond.  Our client's family could not afford to pay the $15,000 so we filed a motion for a bond redetermination with the Immigration Judge.  In support of the bond redetermination motion we submitted evidence of our clients' U.S. citizen children, court orders granting him custody of his children, and that he provides financial support to his children.  Following our arguments at the Bond Redetermination Hearing the Immigration Judge substantially reduced the bond.

Board of Immigration Appeals Grants Clients I-601 Fraud Waiver

This appeal was pending for a long time at the BIA after the Government had appealed our client's grant by the Immigration Judge who had approved our application for a waiver of fraud.  Our client had attempted to enter the U.S. with a fake passport that her smuggler had provided to her and later submitted an asylum application based on her having undergone a forced abortion in China.  She eventually married a U.S. citizen and applied for a green card (via the process known as adjustment of status) through her marriage.  Because she had entered the U.S. by using a fake passport, we disclosed this on her application and applied for a waiver of fraud on Form I-601 which requires a showing of extreme hardship to the U.S. citizen spouse in the event that the immigrant is deported.  While a layman would expect that the extreme hardship would be easy to establish, "extreme hardship" is a legal term of art, and this legal standard is actually quite difficult to meet under the caselaw.  By referencing the facts of the applicable BIA precedent cases and explaining how they relate to our client's case, we were able to convince the BIA that our interpretation and that of our client's judge was correct and that the Government's interpretation was wrong.  After waiting many years for a final decision in her case, our client is extremely happy, with her daughter also being granted a green card through her husband's petition.  Her daughter, who came to the U.S. only about two years ago is already a successful student at Drexel University.

Motion to Reopen Deportation Order Granted

About two months ago, a new client came to our office for a consultation regarding his green card application which had been denied by the USCIS.  His case had been denied due to a prior order of deportation by the Immigration Court although he was previously unaware that he had ever been in court proceedings. We immediately filed a Freedom of Information Act Request with the Executive Office for Immigration Review and the USCIS to determine why our client had been placed into deportation proceedings without his knowledge.  After obtaining his file, we learned that our client had been ordered removed from the United States in absentia and that his Notice to Appear and subsequent court hearing notices had been improperly sent by regular mail to an address of a friend that he provided at the airport when he first arrived in the United States.  Therefore, our client never received notice that he was in deportation proceedings and did not attend his court hearing because he did not know he was in court proceedings. Our client was scheduled for an interview at the Philadelphia USCIS Office on his wife's I-130 petition, which was still pending despite the denial of his green card application.  The interview was scheduled only 4 days after we received a complete copy of his Immigration Court file.  Because he had a final order of deportation/removal, we informed our client that he would likely be detained when he attended his interview and that he could be sent to an immigration detention center unless we were able to file a motion to reopen his case prior to the interview. After researching the matter, we determined that an appeals court case supported our position that our client's final in absentia removal order should be reopened because the Notice to Appear and subsequent notices of court hearings had been improperly sent to him by regular mail at an address at which he had never resided.  We immediately began working on the motion to reopen and assisting our client in obtaining affidavits from witnesses to confirm that he had not received any communication from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the Court and that he had never lived at the address used in the Notice to Appear and subsequent court hearing notices. We were able to file our client's motion to reopen the day before his interview, and obtain a receipt from the Philadelphia Immigration Court to prove to the ICE officers that a motion to reopen our client's in absentia removal order was pending with the Court and that an automatic stay of removal had taken effect.  Under the law, an immigrant who files a motion to reopen an in absentia removal order based on failure to receive notice of a removal hearing is automatically granted a "stay of removal" and for that reason, may not be deported pending the court's decision on the motion. The next day, we accompanied our client and his wife to the I-130 interview.  As we had explained to our client, ICE officials from the Detention and Removal Office came to the interview due to his final order of deportation/removal from the Philadelphia Immigration Court.  We immediately handed them a copy of the motion to reopen and the receipt from the court, noting to them that an automatic stay of removal was in effect and that our client could not be deported. The officers took our client to obtain his fingerprints to confirm that he had no criminal record and proceeded to place him under a "order of supervision" which meant that he could return home with his wife rather than be detained and sent to an immigration detention facility. The government's immigration lawyers filed a response to our motion, agreeing with the arguments in our motion, and informing the Philadelphia Immigration Court that they did not oppose our motion to reopen.  Shortly thereafter, the Court granted our motion, making our client eligible to reapply for a green card and meaning that he is no longer under a final order of deportation. In a case like this, where a motion to reopen an immigration court case must be submitted on short notice to prevent a client's arrest, it is crucial that the motion be properly prepared in accordance with the Immigration Court's Practice Manual, that every factual assertion contained therein be thoroughly documented with documentary evidence and/or affidavits from qualified witnesses, and that the motion be properly filed with the Court to avoid it being rejected due to failure to comply with proper procedure.

BIA Grants Motion to Reopen

The Board of Immigration Appeals (the "BIA"), granted our motion to reopen a client's court proceedings based on her eligibility to apply for a green card through her marriage to a U.S. citizen.  This client hired us only two days before the filing deadline for her motion, making this an urgent, and difficult case.  Motions to reopen immigration court cases must be filed within 90 days of a final order of deportation or removal, and our client hired our law firm as her immigration lawyers on the 88th day following the Board of Immigration Appeal's order of removal/deportation.  Working overtime, we were able to prepare and file all necessary forms required for a motion to reopen her case, including the filing of her husband's immediate relative petition and the preparation of a proposed I-485, green card application which is a prerequisite under federal regulations.  An Immigration Judge sitting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania will hear our client's case on remand from the BIA.  We expect to receive a new hearing notice from the Philadelphia Court within a few months. Our firm has seen many immigration lawyers make mistakes that caused motions to reopen to be denied in cases similar to this case.  Where a motion must be filed within days, any error could be catastrophic as Immigration Courts and the BIA are permitted to reject any filing that does not comport with regulations or the Immigration Court's Practice Manual.  When a motion is rejected and returned to a lawyer, the actual filing date will be when the Court receives the motion back in proper format.  If the 90 day deadline has already passed, the client may never be able to reopen his or her case.

Use the form below to submit
your information and we
will contact you shorty.

Full Name

Email

Message