Motions to Reopen / Reconsider and other Motions

A client from Panama entered the United States on a visa with his grandmother when he was a minor. He overstayed his visa and was placed into deportation proceedings. He applied for asylum and withholding of removal. The Immigration Judge denied his applications and granted voluntary departure. Our client appealed the decision, but the appeal was dismissed. He was given 30 days to leave. Our client did not leave because of a medical emergency with his grandmother who had a stroke. Our client attended high school and was a hard-working student. He met the love of his life in high school, and they eventually married after graduation. His wife became a U.S. citizen and filed an I-130 Petition on behalf of her husband which was approved. Our client hired a second lawyer to help him file a motion to reopen his case, but the lawyer incorrectly filed a motion to withdrawal his appeal which was already dismissed. His second attorney then filed a motion to reopen with the Immigration Court. The Court denied the motion stating that it did not have jurisdiction over the case. Our client's lawyer then filed a green card application with INS. His application was denied because he had a final order, and he was taken into custody by ICE. He hired a new lawyer to help him get out of jail. His third lawyer filed a motion to reopen again with the BIA. The BIA denied the motion for being untimely filed. Our client then retained our firm to help him with his case. We filed a joint motion to reopen with the government which was denied. We filed a second joint motion to reopen which was also denied. Then, we filed a new motion to reopen with the BIA arguing that the BIA should exercise its own authority to reopen the case because exceptional circumstances existed which warranted reopening. Our client now had four children and diligently tried to reopen his case over the years. But because of the actions of his second attorney, our client's case took a serious turn for the worse which delayed in the reopening of his case. Our client also never left because he had to help his grandmother who suffered from a stroke and is now partially paralyzed. The Board granted our motion. Sixteen years later his case was finally reopened. Now, he can apply for his green card with the court and stay with his beautiful family safely in the United States. Our client had four different lawyers and hit obstacle after obstacle, but our client and our firm persevered until the end. Our attorney Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm.

One of our clients, a national of Ghana, had an I-130 visa petition filed on his behalf by his United States Citizen Spouse. She passed away suddenly, without warning and at a very young age and before the couple was married for two years. The USCIS denied the visa petition and the I-485, application for permanent residence (AKA Greencard). Our office filed a Motion to Reconsider/Reopen with the USCIS Office that had jurisdiction over the case based upon the 6^th Circuit decision in Lockhart v. Napolitano, 08-3321 (6^th Cir. 2009). The USCIS agreed to reopen and adjudicate the case based upon our motion!

Our client was placed in removal proceedings after being convicted of a controlled substance offense. He is a lawful permanent resident. He was placed in ICE custody and was subject to mandatory detention. We filed a motion to vacate his criminal plea to the controlled substance offense. That motion was granted. We then moved to terminate removal proceedings. The motion was granted and the removal case was terminated. Our client was released from ICE custody. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client from Mexico was arrested by ICE and put in jail. He was told by Immigration officers that he had a final order of deportation, but our client had never even been to court. His family immediately hired our firm. We filed a FOIA request and received our client's court records. After a thorough review of the file and after speaking with our client at length about his immigration history we filed a Motion to Reopen the deportation order and argued that our client never received notice of his hearings and that this was a case of mistaken identity. DHS filed a response in opposition to our motion which we addressed. The Judge agreed with our position and reopened the case. Deborah Lee and Scott Bratton handled the case for the firm.

Our client from China entered the United States without inspection in 1988. He applied for asylum, and the Immigration Judge denied his case in 1996. Our client appealed his case, and the appeal was dismissed in 1997. He filed a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions in China which was denied in 2002. Our client married a Chinese woman who had also applied for asylum. Her case was granted in 2001. However, due to problems with the mail, our client and his wife never received the final approval until 2003. Our client married his wife prior to her grant of asylum, so she filed an I-730 Petition for relatives of asylees with the help of an attorney. The I-730 Petition was denied for being untimely filed outside the two-year deadline. She hired another attorney to help her file a motion to reopen which was also denied. Our client hired our firm to help us reopen the I-730 Petition, and our attorney Deborah Lee successfully argued that the late filing of the I-730 Petition was beyond the control of our client and his wife. USCIS reopened the case and approved the I-730 Petition in January 2009. After the approval, our attorney filed a joint motion to reopen with DHS, and DHS has agreed to join us in a motion to reopen the case. We are now filing a motion to reopen with the Immigration Court so that he can apply for a green card. Scott Bratton is handling the case for the firm.

Our client from India retained our firm to help her reopen her immigration case. She had a final order from 1995. She had entered the United States in 1991 and applied for political asylum. Her application was referred to the Immigration Judge. Our client retained a lawyer to represent her in Court. Her lawyer attended one hearing with her. He did not inform our client about the next hearing date and simply told her to wait. She tried to contact her lawyer to ask about the next hearing date and was simply told that she no longer needed to appear in court because her case was completed. Our client was young and did not know any English at the time. She also did not understand the immigration laws and simply trusted her lawyer to tell her the truth. She did not go to any hearing per her lawyer's instructions. It was not until 2009 that she found out that she had a final order of deportation when an ICE officer came to her door to arrest her. She retained our firm to help her to reopen her case. Our firm filed a FOIA request to retrieve all of her old court documents and tapes of the hearing and found out that her former attorney attended the final hearing and lied to the Judge about our client's whereabouts. Our client was shocked to hear the tape recording of what happened at her final hearing. We demonstrated that she was the victim of the ineffective assistance of her former lawyer. The Immigration Court agreed and reopened her case. Now, fourteen years later she has been given a chance to have her day in court and is eligible to apply for a green card. Deborah Lee and Scott Bratton handled the case for the firm.

Our client came to us after she had been ordered removed to Togo after her asylum application had been denied. In consulting with her, we learned that while in Togo, our client was forced to undergo female genital mutilation (FGM). This can serve as a grounds for asylum. However, it was never raised in her asylum application or at her hearing. Her former attorney never asked her about this. We filed a motion to reopen sua sponte requesting the court to allow her to file a new asylum claim based on her undergoing FGM in Togo. We also submitted substantial evidence in support of the motion. In January 2010, the immigration judge issued an order reopening the case sua sponte. This will allow our client to proceed on asylum based on the FGM. Scott Bratton is handling the case.

Our clients (mother and son) came to us after they had removal orders for failing to appear at a removal hearing shortly after they arrived in the United States. We first filed a motion to reopen for the son alleging that his case should be reopen based on exceptional circumstances for failing to appear. Since the motion was filed outside the 90-day period for filing motions to reopen, we asked that the Immigration Court exercise its sua sponte authority. The Court reopened the case. Our client is now eligible to adjust status based on a petition filed by his United States citizen step-father. We then requested that DHS agree to reopen the mother's case based on compelling reasons for her coming to the United States and the fact she was married to a United States citizen and eligible to adjust status. We were happy to learn that DHS has agreed to reopen the case. Therefore, she can also apply for adjustment of status. Scott Bratton handled the cases.

Our client and her son from South Korea both entered the United States illegally in 1999. Our client was escaping an extremely abusive relationship to her ex-husband in Korea. They were immediately apprehended by ICE upon entry. They were scheduled for a hearing but did not receive their hearing notice. Our clients both were issued final orders. Our client fell in love and married a U.S. citizen who applied for I-130 Petitions for both his wife and step-son. Both I-130 Petitions were approved. Our client did know how to resolve her immigration problems. Our client's son was later apprehended by ICE last year. We filed a motion to reopen his case which was granted, and he is applying for a green card before the Court. We filed a joint motion to reopen for his mother in December of last year, and the government agreed to join us in reopening the case one month later in January of this year. We are now filing a motion to reopen her case with the Immigration Judge. Deborah Lee and Scott Bratton handled the case for the firm.

Our client came to us after she had an order of removal. Her case was pending at the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals. She was married to a United States citizen and her I-130 had been approved. We asked that DHS agree to reopen her case to allow her to adjust status. We filed a written request with supporting documentation to the DHS office in San Francisco. Upon consideration of our request, they agreed to reopen the case. The case was scheduled for a hearing on the adjustment of status application in January 2010. After a hearing, the Immigration Judge granted adjustment of status to our client. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client from China entered the United States without inspection and hired an immigration consultant to help him to obtain legal status. The consultant filed a fraudulent I-140 petition for an alien of extraordinary ability on his behalf without the client's knowledge. The I-140 petition was denied, and our client was put into removal proceedings. The immigration consultant put fake addresses on the I-140 petition, and our client never received a Notice to Appear informing him that he was put into proceedings. He failed to appear for his hearing because he never received any hearing notices and was ordered removed. He retained our firm to help him reopen his case. We argued that the case must be reopened for the failure of our client to receive both his Notice to Appear, apprising him of his duties and obligations to appear in court and report any address changes, and a hearing notice. Our client's case was reopened, and now he has a chance to have his day in court. Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm.

A Liberian national arrived in the United States in 1991 and filed an asylum application because his entire family was killed by rebel forces. A Freedom of Information Act Request was filed by our office and it showed that our client never received proper notice of the denial of his pending asylum application. A notice to appear was issued in 2000, some nine years after his arrival in the United States. He had moved several times and never received the notice to appear. An in abentia order of removal was entered against him. He married a United States Citizen and has small children. Our Attorney Jason Lorenzon filed a motion to reopen his in absentia order due to lack of proper service and filed an I-130 immigrant visa application simultaneously. His case was reopened and once his case is reopened, he does not have a final order of removal. He will be able to adjust status in front of the Immigration Judge and receive his green card in the future. At this point, the final order of removal is moot and our client will be able to get his green card and legal status in the United States.

Our clients hired our firm after they had been ordered removed when their asylum applications were denied. All their appeals had been exhausted. Our clients' daughter is a United States citizen. She filed I-130s for both our clients. Once the I-130s were approved, we filed a joint motion to reopen request with ICE to allow our clients to adjust status. Upon reviewing the extensive documentation we submitted, ICE agreed to reopen the case. The case was then set for a hearing on the adjustment of status applications. In December 2009, after a hearing with the Immigration Court, the adjustment of status applications were granted. Our clients are now lawful permanent residents. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client was granted voluntary departure. She then came to our office and explained that she had an old I-130 petition filed by her lawful permanent resident father that was protected under 245(i). She was a minor at the time. She was not sure if the petition had been adjudicated. We looked into the matter and determined that the petition had not been adjudicated. This was actually good news because she would still be considered a child under the Child Status Protection Act and could benefit from her father's petition that was originally filed on her behalf. Under our argument, she would be eligible to adjust status upon approval of the I-130 despite the fact she was no longer a minor. We filed a motion to reopen with the Board of Immigration Appeals arguing that she would be eligible to immediately adjust status under the Child Status Protection Act upon approval of the I-130 and that she was not barred from adjusting status despite overstaying voluntary departure. In December 2009, the Board reopened our client's case. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client hired us after the Board of Immigration denied his appeal and his motion to remand to apply for adjustment of status based on a pending I-130. We then filed a motion to reopen based on the same pending I-130 with additional supporting evidence. DHS opposed the motion. We filed a reply arguing that the case must be reopened. After considering the arguments, the Board granted reopening. This will allow our client's I-130 to be approved so that he can apply for his green card with the Immigration Judge. Scott Bratton handled the case.

A client from Mexico entered the United States without inspection. Respondent was issued a Notice to Appear by an Immigration officer, but he was never provided with a Spanish-language interpreter. The officer attempted to speak Spanish to our client and wrote down a phone number he should call to notify Immigration if he ever moved. Our client received a hearing notice in the mail and appeared for his hearing. He was instructed by a court clerk to wait for several hours, but he was never called into court. Our client eventually left the courtroom, and no one informed him about the next hearing date. A new hearing notice was mailed to our client, but he never received the notice because he had moved. Our client tried to change his address with Immigration with the phone number provided by the officer, but he could not successfully change his number because it was an incorrect number. Our client missed his next hearing and was ordered removed in abstentia. We filed a motion to reopen his case and argued that our client did not receive proper notice of his hearing and did not receive proper notice about how to change his address with the Court. Our client was not provided with a proper interpreter at the time he was served a Notice to Appear. He did not understand, speak, or read in English and had to rely on the officer's limited Spanish. He was also not provided with proper notice about how to change his address. Our client's case was reopened, and he is scheduled to appear in court for a new hearing. Our attorneys Scott Bratton and Deborah Lee handled the case.

A client from South Korea was detained by ICE, and our office received an urgent call to help reopen his deportation case. He came to the United States as a 15-year old with his mother in November 1999. Both our client and his mother were ordered removed in abstentia for failing to appear at their hearing. We filed a motion to reopen arguing that our client was only a juvenile at the time that he was placed into removal proceedings and that his failure to appear in court was outside of his control and through no fault of his own as he relied on his mother to make sure he appeared for all court hearings. His case was reopened, and he was released from jail. He was the beneficiary of an approved I-130 Petition filed by his step-father, and now he is applying for his green card through the Court. Our attorneys Deborah Lee and Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client was detained by ICE shortly after his BIA appeal was denied. He then hired our office to file a Petition for Review with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. We filed a Petition and a Motion for Stay of Removal. ICE would not release our client at that point. The Government filed an opposition to our Motion and we filed a reply. The Sixth Circuit granted a stay of removal. Our client has been released from custody. Scott Bratton is handling the federal case.

Client from Hong Kong came to us to see how we could reopen his final deportation order. Client had a final order because he did not appear at his hearing. Client stayed in the country because of a very complicated relationship he had with his ex-wife who suffered from severe depression. His ex-wife would threaten to inflict harm upon herself if he ever left. He eventually divorced her and found the love of his life. He married her and had a child with her who was diagnosed with a birth defect. Client's wife became a U.S. citizen, and now he was eligible for a form of relief that was not available to him at the time of his hearing. We helped client's wife file an I-130 petition on behalf of her husband which was approved. We then filed a joint motion to reopen and asked the government to join us in reopening his case due to compelling circumstances that warranted the reopening of his case. The government agreed to join us in reopening the case, and now we are have asked that the Court reopen and terminate proceedings so that he may file for his green card with USCIS. Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm.

Our client came to us after he was convicted of possession of marijuana. This conviction was causing him problems with his naturalization case. We filed a motion to vacate his guilty plea in the criminal case arguing that the plea was not knowing and voluntary. In August 2009, the motion was granted and our client's guilty plea was vacated. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client, A.K., a native citizen of Kenya, arrived in the US as a student. She graduated with a Master degree. Two years later she filed an application for asylum which was later referred to the Immigration Judge. The Immigration Judge denied her case. Our client filed a timely appeal to BIA (Board of Immigration Appeals) which affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge. Our client again filed a timely Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals. While the case was pending with the Court of Appeals, our client married a US Citizen who immediately filed an I-130, Petition for Alien Relative. Upon approval of the I-130, our office filed a request asking the Department of Homeland Security to join in a motion to reopen her case. The Department of Homeland Security agreed to reopen the case. A joint Motion was filed with the BIA and this case was reopened giving our client the opportunity to apply for adjustment of status in 2009. Scott Bratton assisted by Fabiola Cini handled the case for Margaret Wong & Associates.

Mr. Q.L., a native of China, hired our office to try to reopen his case. He had a final order of deportation due to denial of his asylum application. He was later married to a US Citizen. Our office filed an I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, and at the meantime filed a Joint Motion to reopen request with the Department of Homeland Security. The Department joined in our request to reopen this case. Upon reopening of the case and I-130 Approval, our office filed an I-485(Application to register permanent residence or adjust status) before the New York Immigration Court. Our client was granted permanent residence. Margaret Wong and Scott Bratton worked on the case assisted by our other New York staff members.

One of our clients, a national of Ghana, had an I-130 visa petition filed on his behalf by his United States Citizen Spouse. She passed away suddenly, without warning and at a very young age and before the couple was married for two years. The USCIS denied the visa petition and the I-485, application for permanent residence (AKA Greencard). Our office filed a Motion to Reconsider/Reopen with the USCIS Office that had jurisdiction over the case based upon the 6th Circuit decision in Lockhart v. Napolitano, 08-3321 (6th Cir. 2009). The USCIS agreed to reopen and adjudicate the case based upon our motion!

Our team was successful in getting an "arriving alien" with a final order of deportation his green card. He was paroled into the country back in the mid 1990's. He filed for asylum but his application was denied by an immigration judge and appealed the case but that appeal was denied in 2002. He had a final order of deportation. His daughter is a United States Citizen and filed an I-130 petition for him. Our attorney Jason Lorenzon prepared the necessary Motion to Reopen with the Board of Immigration Appeals and a Motion Staying his Deportation so that USCIS could adjudicate his pending I-130 application and his application for adjustment of status (green card). Mr. Lorenzon also prepared our client and his daughter and he also attended the USCIS interview with our client and our client's daughter. This case was filed in April of 2009 and his green card was granted in August 2009!

A client from China applied for asylum and was notified by the asylum office that her application was recommended for approval in July 1998. She was issued a final grant of asylum in May 2001. However, she did not become aware of the final grant until September 2003. She was issued an approval letter, but she never received it in the mail. As soon as she found out that she was granted asylum, she immediately filed an I-730 refugee/asylee relative petition for her spouse so that he could receive the same immigration benefits as a family member of an asylee. In order to receive those benefits, the applicant must file the petition within two years of the grant of asylum. Our client never received notice of her final grant of asylum until September 2003 when she happened to go to a local USCIS office to follow up on her application. She hired an attorney to help her file the I-730 petition, but it was denied by Immigration for being filed outside the two-year limit. She hired a second attorney who filed a second I-730 petition based on humanitarian grounds. The I-730 petition was denied. Our client retained our firm in January 2009, and we filed a motion to reopen the denial of the I-730 petition arguing that the untimely filing of the I-730 petition was due to no fault of the client. The motion to reopen was granted by the Service. Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm with the help of Arty Wynieski.

Our client from the Ukraine entered the U.S. without inspection. She fell in love with and married a U.S. citizen. Her husband filed an I-130 Petition on her behalf which was approved. The client mistakenly applied for her green card in the U.S. because she did not know she was ineligible to apply due to her illegal entry. The green card application was denied, and she was issued a notice to appear to be put into removal proceedings. The client never received the notice to appear or a hearing notice. She had moved and changed her address with Immigration, but her court notices were sent to an old address. She missed her hearing and received a final order in abstentia. In the mean time, she had hired an attorney to help her to start consular processing so she could apply for an immigrant visa outside the U.S. Neither the client nor her attorney found out about the final order, and she left voluntarily to the Ukraine to attend her immigrant visa interview. She submitted an I-601 Waiver for unlawful presence with her immigrant visa application which was denied. She hired our firm to prepare a new waiver application. While our firm was doing research on her case, we found out that she had a final order and filed a motion to reopen in abstentia based on the failure to receive a Notice to Appear and a hearing notice. Even though she had already left the country, we argued that by statute the Immigration Court had jurisdiction to reopen the case. The Immigration Judge agreed with our argument, rescinded the final order, and reopened her case. Our client is now waiting to enter the country through consular processing. Scott Bratton and Deborah Lee handled the case for our firm.

A Salvadorian national entered the country illegally back in 2005. He was ordered deported in absentia, a motion to reopen the case was filed with the immigration court and the same immigration judge denied reopening of the case. This denial subjected the alien to deportation. Our team filed an appeal and motion for stay of removal pending consideration of the appeal. The motion for stay of removal was granted and the client is permitted to remain in the United States.

A client from the former Yugoslavia entered the United States on a tourist visa. She married a U.S. citizen who filed I-130/I-485 applications on her behalf. The client's husband disappeared before the green card interview, and the green card application was denied. The client was put into deportation proceedings. The client never received her notice to appear at the court, and she never received a hearing notice. She misses her hearing and is ordered deported for failure to appear. A few years later, her daughter becomes a U.S. citizen and files I-130/I-485 applications for her mother. Our client hires a legal aid service to help her fill out her paperwork. The I-130 petition is approved, but the I-485 application is never processed because the paperwork is not handled properly by her representative. Our client hires another representative to help her fill out a new green card application, but this application is returned several times for incorrect fees. The client is finally picked up by ICE and put into custody. The client never knew she had a final order. She was never informed by the representatives handling her case. Our firm files a motion to reopen in abstentia for our client based on the fact that she did not receive her notice to appear and hearing notice at the proper address. The client's case is reopened, and her green card application was approved by the Immigration Judge. After 13 years, our client now has her green card. Scott Bratton and Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm with the assistance of Alex Strmac.

Our client's case was denied by Board of Immigration Appeals. He then hired our firm to represent him. He had just married a United States citizen and we filed a motion to reopen based on a pending I-130 that was filed by his new wife on his behalf. DHS opposed the motion. We filed a response to DHS' opposition. The case was reopened and our client can now pursue adjustment of status. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client came to us after she had been ordered deported in 2004 after her asylum claim was denied. We filed a motion to reopen alleging ineffective assistance of counsel on many grounds. We also requested reopening to allow her to file a new asylum application based on changed conditions in her country. Upon consideration of the motion, the motion was granted. Scott Bratton represented our client.

Our clients hired us after they learned that they had removal orders for failing to attend their hearings. They were unaware that they were even in removal proceedings due to the actions of their former attorney. They came to us and we filed a motion to reopen with the Immigration Court in Philadelphia. The Motion was granted and the cases were reopened. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client was granted withholding of removal by an Immigration Judge in Chicago. He could not obtain asylum due to an aggravated felony conviction. Scott Bratton worked on the case. Subsequently, he violated his probation on the criminal case and the criminal judge conducted new proceedings and sentenced our client to over five years in jail. Upon completion of his criminal sentence (he only served part of the term), DHS moved to reopen the removal proceedings and terminate the grant of withholding of removal arguing that it was proper to revoke the withholding grant because our client committed "any other act" since the time of the withholding grant that would have been grounds for denial had it been committed prior to the time of the withholding hearing. This is because an applicant cannot receive withholding of removal if he was convicted of an aggravated felony where the sentence was five years or more. DHS argued that the probation violation was the act that triggered the new sentence causing our client to be ineligible for withholding of removal. The Immigration Judge reopened the proceedings and terminated the withholding of removal grant. We appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. After considering the case, the a three-member panel of the Board agreed with our interpretation of the regulation. The Board noted that there were no cases addressing the issue and that this was a close case. However, the Board agreed that the act must be an act that subjects someone to removal and a probation violation does not do so. The removal proceedings were terminated and our client's withholding of removal grant continued. Our client was released from ICE custody. Scott Bratton handled the case.

A client from El Salvador entered the U.S. without inspection. She was picked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers along with several other illegal aliens from the same apartment complex. She was released on bond and gave her family member's address because she had just moved to a new apartment and was not sure she would get her mail at the new address. She continued to receive mail at her family member's address and regularly checked her mail. Several months later, she was picked up again by Immigration officers because she had a final order of removal for failure to appear at her hearing. Our client had never received a hearing notice at the address she provided to Immigration authorities when she was first arrested. Immigration had mailed a hearing notice to her most current address, but they failed to include an apartment number in the mailing address and only included the apartment building number. Our client never provided this address to Immigration but suspected that they had obtained this building address number from the other aliens who were arrested at the same time. We filed a motion to reopen the case based on our client's failure to receive her hearing notice at the proper address. The client's case was reopened, and our client was released on bond. Scott Bratton and Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm.

Our client hired us after she learned that she had been ordered deported in absentia. She hired our firm and we filed a detailed motion to reopen arguing that our client did not receive proper notice of the deportation proceedings or the hearing. DHS opposed the Motion. After considering the arguments, the Immigration Judge granted our motion in November 2008. Scott Bratton and Debbie Lee handled the case.

A client from China was issued a conditional grant of asylum based on violation of the family planning laws in China in May 2001. He filed an I-730 Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition and requested derivative asylee status for his wife, who was in China so that she could come to join him in the United States. The Petition was approved in August 2001, and the wife was scheduled for an interview in China. The U.S. Embassy in Beijing notified our client that his wife was scheduled for an interview but did not appear. Therefore, the case was administratively closed. Our client filed a second I-730 Petition in January 2004 which was denied. Our client hired us to reopen the case, and we filed a motion to reopen to demonstrate that his wife did not appear at the interview because she had never received the interview notice. We explained how the postal service in the wife's village was rudimentary and inadequate, and therefore, the wife never received her hearing notice. The case was reopened, and the I-730 was approved. Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm.

A Turkish teacher came to see us in January 2008. He was very concerned about his immigration case, previously handled by another lawyer. He told us he came to USA for the first time in July 2007 under a J-1 visa as a student exchange visitor, sponsored by an organization for bilingual professionals. In September 2007 his previous lawyer filed an I-539 to change his status from J-1 to F-1 (student visa), since he wanted to study an intensive English as a Second language course which would enable him to pass some difficult academic tests. However, the I-539 was denied in January 2008 because USCIS said he had withdrawn or abandoned the J-1 program in August 2007, so he had failed to maintain legal status and therefore had stayed in USA in violation of the law. After doing some research, in February 2008 we filed a Motion to Reopen. We were able to prove that he had never abandoned the program; instead it was the organization who had failed to present annual paperwork to the Department of State and therefore was no longer a valid sponsor for J-1 visa. The organization failed to properly inform the students, so our client was not aware that he was out of status. One month later the Motion was granted, and the processing of I-539 continued, so USCIS asked for more evidence. In May 2008 we timely filed this evidence and waited for an answer. We did follow up and filed inquiries about this case. On August 6 2008 we called USCIS and filed a claim because it was taking too long and also their website showed they had sent some documentation to us in April, which we had not received. Only five days after that we received the I-539 approval. Our client will now be studying under an F-1 visa, valid for the duration of his status as student in this English as a Second Language program.

A client from Serbia entered the United States on a visitor's visa. She married a U.S. citizen who filed Petition for Alien Relative and Green Card applications (I-130 and I-485 respectively) on her behalf. Unfortunately, the client's husband disappeared before the green card interview. The client did not attend the interview given her husband's disappearance, and her green card application was denied. Subsequently, she was put into deportation proceedings, but she never received her notice to appear or her hearing notice at the proper mailing address informing her that she had been put into deportation. She failed to appear for her hearing and was ordered deported in absentia. A few years later, her daughter became a U.S. citizen and filed I-130/I-485 applications for her mother. Our client hired someone from a legal aid service to help her fill out her paperwork. The I-130 petition was approved, but the I-485 application was never processed because our client's paperwork was mishandled by her representative. Our client hired another translator to help her fill out a new green card application, but this application was returned several times for incorrect fees. The client is finally picked up by ICE and put into custody. Our firm filed a motion to reopen in absentia for our client based on the fact that she did not receive her notice to appear and hearing notice at the proper address. The client's case was reopened, and now she is eligible to apply for her green card. Scott Bratton and Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm with the assistance of Alex Strmac.

Our client retained us after she had been ordered deported and was in ICE custody. We filed a motion to reopen alleging that our client failed to receive proper notice of proceedings. DHS opposed the Motion. After considering our arguments, the Motion was granted and the case was reopened. Additionally, our client was released from ICE custody. Our client is eligible to adjust status now that removal proceedings have been reopened. Debbie Lee and Scott Bratton handled the case.

Great case! Our client came to the United States as a V-1 as she was a spouse of a green card holder. However, she failed to timely extend her V-1 status. While out of status, she filed an application for adjustment of status. The application was denied by CIS because of a failure to maintain status. We then were hired and filed a nunc pro tunc motion to extend her V status arguing that exceptional circumstances prevented the timely filing of the extension request. The motion was denied. We then filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that CIS failed to recognize that it had the authority to grant the untimely extension request nunc pro tunc. We were able to work on a resolution of the case in federal court, which resulted in the V visa request being approved nunc pro tunc to the date the first V visa had expired. Thus, our client was back in valid status and was considered to have always maintained her status. We then filed a motion to reopen the denial of the adjustment of status application due to the V approval. The motion to reopen was granted in July 2008 and our client just received her green card. The result in this case was due to the relentless work of our team of attorneys. We were able to get our client her green card when it initially appeared like she was going to have to leave the United States. She is now able to remain in the United States with her husband. Scott Bratton, Lori Pinjuh, and JP Sarmiento worked on this case.

Our clients from Pakistan hired us after they were detained by ICE due to final orders of removal. We filed a motion to reopen arguing that our clients must have their cases reopened because they were not properly served with the Notice to Appear. The immigration judge denied the motion. We then filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals. After consideration of our detailed brief, the Board granted the motion to reopen. Scott Bratton and JP Sarmiento handled the case.

Our client hired us after she unknowingly had been ordered deported and had her green card application denied. She was unknowingly placed in removal proceedings after an asylum case she filed had been denied. She did not appear at her hearing and was ordered deported. We filed a motion to reopen alleging that she did not receive proper notice of her hearing. The motion was granted. We were also able to successfully terminate removal proceedings in New York in July 2008. Scott Bratton and JP Sarmiento handled the case.

Our client had a final removal order when he retained our firm. He was also married to a United States citizen. We were able to get DHS to agree to reopen his case. Additionally, he was scheduled for an interview on his I-130 petition. After an extensive interview in New York, New York, the I-130 was granted. Our client can now file his green card application so that he can adjust status. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Two Albanian citizens hired our office in 2008. They had applied for political asylum in 2000. Their case was referred to Immigration Court but denied in 2002.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed the case in 2003. In 2003 their daughter became a US Citizen. She filed I-130 petitions on behalf of her parents and those petitions were approved in 2007. Our office filed a proposed joint motion to reopen with the Department of Homeland Security, Chief Counsel's Office. We sought to have their case reopened for humanitarian reasons, so they could apply for adjustment of status as beneficiaries of approved I-130s. In our motion we argued that their removal would cause hardship not only to this elderly couple, but also to their family of US Citizens. We supported our motion with evidence that they were persons of good moral character and neither would become a public charge if permitted to remain in the US. The government agreed to reopen the case only within a month of filing. Now both our clients will be eligible to adjust status before the Immigration Court once the BIA will reopen the case based on our joint MOTION TO REOPEN (MTR). Scott Bratton handled the case for our office.

Our client from China was ordered to be deported more than 14 years ago. His request for asylum based on his fear of being persecuted on account of having violated China's "One-child" policy was denied. He had been staying in US illegally ever since. In 1996 our client's wife and his children came to the US on his wife's mother's petition. In March 2001 his wife filed I-130. Since the petition was filed prior to April 30, 2001 and was clearly approvable when filed, our client was grandfathered under INA 245(I). This application has been pending. In 2003 or client's daughter became a US citizen. She filed an I-130 petition which was approved in 2005. Our office was hired in late 2007 to help him reopen the case. We filed a Joint Motion to Reopen arguing that there were compelling circumstances that warrant a favorable exercise of discretion for the government to join our request. The Department of Homeland Security joined our motion to reopen proceedings and BIA remanded the case to Immigration Court for consideration of his application for adjustment of status. Scott Bratton handled the case for our office.

A client from Mexico hired our firm to handle his deportation case. The client was ordered to be removed in absentia for failure to appear at his hearing. The client had not received his Notice to Appear (NTA) or his hearing notice at the last address provided to USCIS. We saw that the client was eligible to apply for adjustment of status as a lawful permanent resident. Our firm filed a motion to reopen his case for failure to receive his NTA and hearing notice, and the case was reopened. Now we will be able to file for his green card. Scott Bratton and Deborah Lee handled the case for our firm.

Our client was a teenager from China who entered the U.S. on a tourist visa to visit his relatives. While in the U.S. he discovered that he needed jaw surgery and filed an extension of his B-2 visa. USCIS denied the request stating that the applicant had not provided enough evidence to demonstrate that his stay would be temporary. Our firm filed a motion to reopen the denial of his B-2 extension providing evidence demonstrating the client's need for surgery and the temporary nature of his stay. The motion to reopen was granted, and the client's B-2 visa was extended another six months. Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm.

A citizen from China entered without inspection and applied for asylum based on being a member of Falun Gong spiritual group, which is under government persecution in China for their beliefs and practices. He had to postpone his asylum interview because of a medical emergency. He never received a new interview notice in the mail. His case was then referred to the Immigration Judge. He had a new hearing scheduled, but never received a Notice to Appear or a hearing notice, therefore he did not show up again and was ordered to be removed in absentia for failure to appear at his hearing. He was later picked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and detained. At this point, he hired our firm to reopen his case. Our firm filed a motion to reopen in absentia for failure to receive both the Notice to Appear and a hearing notice at his current address. The case was reopened, and the client is now eligible to apply for asylum through the court. Scott Bratton and Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm.

We filed I-485s (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) for the client and her family in April 2004, based on an approved I-140 (Petition for Alien Worker). INS erroneously denied the applications, and we subsequently filed Motions to Reopen for each in March 2006. The Motions to Reopen were granted for the client and her husband. They attended an interview in February 2007, and we received Requests for Evidence for their I-485s in May 2007. We filed responses to the RFEs in July 2007. In May 2008, after several requests for adjudication, the I-485s for client and her husband were approved. Lori Pinjuh and Karim Berdiev worked on this case

Our client from Africa entered on a visitor's visa and overstayed. Later he was put into removal proceedings. The client visited a legal aid clinic for assistance, but he eventually was ordered to be removed in absentia for failure to appear at his removal hearing. The client never really received his hearing notice. Court records showed that client's notice was mailed to a valid address but returned as undeliverable. Our firm filed a motion to reopen his case, providing documentation demonstrating that validity of the address and that the client lived there when the notice was mailed. The case was reopened. Scott Bratton and Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm.

Client from Mexico married a United States citizen. They applied for an I-130 Petition/I-485 Application. The client's I-485 Application was denied for failure to appear at her I-130/I-485 interview. Our firm filed a motion to reopen the case with Immigration demonstrating that the client had every incentive to appear for her interview, had visited the local USCIS office several times inquiring about her case, but never received an interview notice. The case was reopened, and the client was scheduled for her interview. Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm.

Our client, originally from China, was given a final order for deportation in 1994, but he did not leave the country. However, his wife filed an I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) on his behalf in March 2001, which was approved in February 2005, therefore making him eligible for 245(i) Section 245(i) allows certain people to apply for adjustment of status even if they entered the United States illegally or violated their status, provided that a specific petition (I-130 amongst them) was filed by April 30, 2001. It also allows to Adjust Status if the alien has been physically present in the United States on December 21, 2000, if the qualifying visa petition (I-130 in this case) was filed after January 14, 1998. Our client was eligible under both considerations. We filed a Joint Motion to Reopen our client's I-485 with District Counsel in March 2008, and it was approved in May 2008. We will now file an I-485 with Immigration Court. Scott Bratton and Kristie Lumakin worked on this case.