Our client, a citizen of Palestine and a Muslim, entered the country as a conditional resident because of her marriage to a USC. She was married to her husband after her family arranged the marriage and the two meet according to their traditions. Due to the strict tenants of their faith and culture and because he was finishing his professional education in the United States, they were first legally married in Palestine and then decided to have the Walima, the big banquet celebration in the United States after she got her green card and he was graduating that semester from school. When she came to the United States, her husband did not want to have anything to do with her. While waiting for her visa and green card processing he graduated school and she could not attend his graduation. She came to the United States to start a new life with her husband as man and wife. Unfortunately, when she arrived, he avoided her. Due to the tenants of her faith, she could not speak to him directly, but her oldest brother went to talk to him twice to try and resolve the problem. After he came back the second time, she resolved herself to having a life without her husband. After two years, she did not have a green card so she filed for an I-90. She found out that the conditions were not taken off of her green card and she had to file a I-751, petition for removal of conditions. She retained our office. She was not divorced so our office filed a 751 Petition for removal of conditions and filed for a divorce. In the meantime, after she filed for divorce, she found out that her first husband had filed for an annulment. She began dating a USC and falling in love with him. They both worked in the same company and both worked in the same occupation. They eventually ended up getting married. He filed an I-130 immigrant visa petition for her. She was placed in removal proceedings when her I-751 was denied for lack of evidence showing a bona fide first marriage. When she was placed in proceedings, as the subsequent adjustment of status application had to be in front of the Immigration Judge. At the first individual hearing, the Government asked for a continuance to look into the marriage in 2007. The USCIS approved the I-130, they would not have if they found there was marriage fraud.In 2010, the first individual hearing was set, and the government asked for another continuance because they did not have the file. At the second and file hearing, Attorney Jason Lorenzon worked with the Government attorney to narrow the issues in a pretrial hearing before the Immigration Judge. The Government through that the first marriage was fraudulent and wanted to see if there were any issues of "inadmissibility." Attorney Lorenzon argued effectively that if there was any marriage fraud finding that USCIS would not have granted the I-130 with her second husband. The Government agreed with Mr. Lorenzon that our client was statutorily eligible to adjust. Unfortunately, the Government was not satisfied with their own explanation and the hearing went ahead on the issue of inadmissibility suggesting that she entered with the intent that she was not going to live with her husband. Mr. Lorenzon guided appropriate questions demonstrating her first marriage was valid and bona fide and that she entered with the appropriate intent. The Government asked their questions. After one hour and half of testimony, at the break, Attorney Lorenzon had a heated discussion with the Government Attorney. Mr . Lorenzon asked the Government attorney to not waste any more time and to let the case be granted. The Government attorney shortened her questions and then asked the USC Spouse some questions. The Government deferred to the Court's decision. The Immigration Judge granted the case! Our client after waiting almost six years, was granted permanent legal resident once again thanks to the efforts of our team!

Recently many aliens who have a final order have been detained by ICE. According to ICE policy, those aliens are subject to mandatory detention. Therefore usually ICE would not release a detained alien without conducting a custody review. The chance is a detained alien often has to stay in jail for over 90 days, if he cooperates with ICE and there is a type of relief available. To negotiate with ICE is not easy, because to grant a Stay of Deportation is a courtesy.Likewise, Mr. Z was picked up by ICE because he had a final order. He entered the United States in 2001 illegally. The Immigration Judge issued a Voluntary Departure order against him in October 2001. His appeal with Board of Immigration Appeal was dismissed in September 2002, and his Motion to Reopen with the Immigration Court was denied in January 2003. His wife was put in Court Proceedings on July 15, 2010. Mr. Z simply does not have any type of relief. Our law firm was retained by Mr. Z's family on July 21, 2010. We immediately contacted ICE and faxed a letter to the assigned ICE officer. While we were still gathering documents for filing a Stay of Deportation Application with ICE, we talked to the ICE officer 6 times. We were able to persuade the officer listen to our argument: 1) We are preparing a Motion to Reopen for Mr. Z, because Mr. Z was a victim of inefficient counsel's assistant. 2) We are filing a Stay with ICE. 3) We are fling asylum for Mr. Z's wife, therefore Mr. Z will probably obtain a derivative asylee status. 4) Mr. Z's LPR daughter will naturalize in 2011, and she can petition Mr. Z by then. 5) Mr. Z is 59 years old. His wife needs him to look after her. 6) Mr. Z does not have any criminal record.ICE finally agreed to make an exception, which was to release Mr. Z first and allow us to file the Stay of Deportation 2nd.

Our client retained us after she had been placed in removal proceedings. She switched attorneys after her case had started. At that time, she had applied for cancellation of removal based on hardship to her USC husband. We took over the case and submitted 800 pages of documentation to the Court to support our case. After three hearings on the cancellation of removal application, the Immigration Judge granted cancellation of removal in June 2010. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client hired us after being placed in removal proceedings for a criminal conviction. We were able to successfully argue that our client was not subject to removal. The removal proceedings were terminated. Scott Bratton handled the case.

We were retained after our client was stopped attempting to enter the United States. Although she was a permanent resident, she was told that she was inadmissible due to fraud in obtaining her green card. She was asked to report for a deferred inspection. She then hired Margaret Wong and Associates. Through our assistance, our client was told that she was admissible to the United States. She was admitted and given back her green card and passport. Scott Bratton handled the case.

One of our clients paid for a $15000.00 bond. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) erroneously stated that the bond was revoked alleging that the alien did not show up for an appointment. Our Attorney Jason Lorenzon wrote an appeal brief outlining the conditions in which ICE is responsible for properly and legally alleging a breach of bond. ICE did not follow government regulations and Mr. Lorenzon argued that ICE did not follow the legal procedure for making such an allegation. The retention of the bond money unjustly enriched the government. The bond money was returned quickly to our client and he got his $15000.00 back.  

One of our clients, who has a final order of deportation from the late 1990's was granted a stay of deportation from the Board of Immigration Appeals. Our attorney Jason Lorenzon wrote the initial motion to reopen sua sponte with the Immigration Court which was denied. Lorenzon immediately filed an appeal brief and motion to stay with the Board of Immigration Appeals. Immigration and Customs Enforcement informed our firm that a stay of deportation was imminent. Further briefs in support were written by Attorneys Jason Lorenzon, Danja Thercka and Scott Bratton. The Motion for Stay was ultimately granted pending the outcome of the appeal. If the case is ultimately reopened, our client will be able to attain legal status here in the United States without having to return to China.

A client originally from Romania had an I-485 Greencard approved based upon her marriage to a United Citizen States Citizen Spouse. After she became pregnant, the husband disappeared. Our client was placed in deportation proceedings. Our office filed an I-751 Joint Petition to Remove Conditional Residency Requirement with a waiver for joint filing since her husband went AWOL. Our office was successful in getting that petition approved. Our office then filed a Motion to Terminate Proceedings with the Immigration Court which was granted the same day it was filed. Congratulations to our client who is a legal permanent resident and also eligible to become a USC!

A Jamaican National was convicted of possession of drugs in 2003. This conviction made him deportable and subjected him to mandatory detention. Immigration and Customs Enforcement caught up with him in 2010 and placed him in detention. He was in detention for 33 days because of the nature of his offence he was subject to mandatory detention. Our team went to work and vacated his underlying criminal conviction and terminated the deportation proceedings. Once deportation proceedings were terminated by Attorney Scott Bratton, our team went to work on fashioning a plea deal that would not make him removable. Attorney Scott Bratton went to the initial hearing and worked out a very good plea deal that would not affect our client's immigration status. Attorney Jason Lorenzon went to the hearing and the Judge surprisingly ordered a presentencing report after our client entered his plea. Attorney Jason Lorenzon skillfully argued that our client was a stellar citizen, a contributing member of our society and should not received any more punishment for what he did. Our client' s family members were present and testified, along with a plethora of supporting documents, the Judge agreed to the amended charges and required nothing further from our client. Our client is able to remain and live in the United States with his family without any further issues with immigration!

A Russian National was placed in proceedings with her entire family after their I-485 application was denied. She had married a USC some three years earlier and had a valid 10 year green card. The 751 removal of conditions was timely filed within the first two years of marriage and granted by USCIS. Because of the nature of the spelling of her name, USCIS issued her another number along with her parents. Attorney Jason Lorenzon filed a motion to terminate along with all supporting documents and proof that she was indeed a legal permanent resident. The Department of Homeland Security did not oppose the motion and the motion to terminate was granted by the Immigration Judge. Our client is no longer in proceedings and will now be able to apply for citizenship!

Our clients hired us to represent them in removal proceedings. We applied for cancellation of removal based on hardship to their two children if they are ordered removed. The primary hardship claim was based on their son's autism. The Court scheduled a hearing on the case. After hearing evidence and argument, the Immigration Judge granted cancellation of removal in May 2010. Our clients can now remain in the United States as permanent residents. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client was placed in removal proceedings. She is a Mexican citizen who has been in the United States for over ten years. She is a single mother of 4 United States citizen children. She has worked in the US and paid all of her taxes. In removal proceedings, we applied for cancellation of removal. The case spanned over two days. After hearing testimony and arguments, the Immigration Judge concluded that our client established exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her USC children and granted cancellation of removal. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Mr. Yang, the father and husband of a poor family, was picked up by ICE officer a while ago when his wife was pregnant with the 3^rd child. The due date was March 5^th. We filed Stay of Deportation with ICE promptly and followed up with ICE regularly. First we were told by ICE that the application would be denied. We argued with ICE that it was very sad that Mr. Yang could not be with his wife when she was delivering the baby, and the wife's case had been reopened and was currently pending with Immigration Court. We pushed the wife's attorney's office to get hearing notice and faxed it to ICE along with a letter. Later we continued to follow up with ICE. Today Mr. Yang was released. His wife and children were extremely happy and thankful.

An Indian National entered the United States in 1997 without inspection. She met up with her Indian Husband who entered several months before her. In the ensuing years, they had two beautiful children here in the United States. Her husband suddenly died due to an unknown affliction with his kidneys, Polycystic Kidney disease. This disease he died of was hereditary and unfortunately was passed on to his oldest daughter. The oldest daughter was diagnosed with the same affliction and received constant medical care and was under constant medical monitoring. Our client also had most of her immediate family here, siblings and her mother and father. Her mother and father were naturalized citizens of the United States. They owned a successful restaurant which their daughter, our client, managed on their behalf. Our client also assisted her parents in their medical care as they are elderly and not in the best of health. Her mother suffered from a mental affliction and required constant medical monitoring and attention. Our team went to work and filed an asylum claim based upon the fact that she was a widow and would be viewed in the least favorable light. Once the asylum application was referred to an immigration judge, our team renewed the application for asylum and submitted "cancellation of removal" on her behalf. Her United States Citizen children would face hardship, her USC parents would face hardship without her presence here in the United and she really could not return to India. Attorney Jason Lorenzon was the trial attorney. Once Mr. Lorenzon presented the case to the Court and all the witnesses testified, the Judge was prepared to grant the case so long as three conditions were met and Mr. Lorenzon along with the Judge convinced the Government to concur. The government agreed. The client went back filed some past taxes . The case was adjourned to allow our client the opportunity to fulfill the Judge's requests. Attorney Lorenzon filed all necessary supporting documents per the Court's request and Cancellation of Removal was granted to our client. She can stay in the United States with her family and not have to return to India!

Our client had a final removal order when he hired our office. He failed to appear at his hearing. We reviewed his paperwork and discovered that he did not receive proper notice of his hearing. We filed a motion to reopen his removal case which was granted. Our client is also married to a United States citizen and had an approved I-130. He is covered under INA Section 245(i). He entered the United States in transit without a visa and is therefore an arriving alien. We informed the Immigration Judge in his reopened case that we had an adjustment of status application pending with USCIS since USCIS had jurisdiction due to his status as an arriving alien. The Judge gave us a long continuance to allow for adjudication of the adjustment of status application. We also spoke with the ICE trial attorney who pushed the case for us. Our client was subsequently interviewed in New York and his adjustment of status application was granted. His removal proceedings will be terminated. Scott Bratton handled the removal case and Jason Lorenzon attended the I-485 interview.

We currently have a case we are working on where our client was found in a criminal proceeding to have procured his admission to the United States and his green card by fraud. He came to the U.S. as a refugee and adjusted status. We are handling the removal portion of the case. Our client is married to a United States citizen and we are arguing that he is eligible to adjust status with a 212(h) waiver for his criminal convictions. DHS argued that our client is not eligible for a 212(h) waiver because he did not continuously reside lawfully in the United States for 7 years prior to the commencement of removal proceedings. We argued that he was admitted and resided in the United States lawfully during this period of time. The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed and concluded that our client is eligible for a 212(h) waiver. Scott Bratton is handling the case.

Our client retained us to assist him in applying for cancellation of removal for a non-lawful permanent resident. Respondent had been in the United States and had one USC daughter. He had sole custody of his young daughter. We presented substantial evidence to show the hardship she would face if our client was deported. After a hearing on the case, the Immigration Judge granted cancellation of removal. Scott Bratton handled the case.

A client from China had a final deportation order. The client failed to appear in court because of an illness. He later fell in love and married a United States citizen, and they had two children. The client's parents and sisters all had legal status as lawful permanent residents or U.S. citizens. The client came to us to try to reopen his case. We filed a joint motion to reopen with the government arguing that the client now had relief available that he did not have at his former hearing and that he warranted a favorable exercise of discretion because of his significant family ties. The government agreed to join us in reopening the case, and now the client is scheduled to appear in court to apply for his green card. Scott Bratton and Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm with the assistance of Francis Ramirez and Arty Wynieski.

Our clients came to us after visiting numerous attorneys over the years to determine how they could legalize their immigration status. When they were in removal proceedings, we applied for cancellation of removal for our clients (husband and wife). We submitted substantial documentation to establish hardship to our clients' United States citizen children. After a 4 hour hearing on the applications, the Immigration Judge granted cancellation of removal for our clients. Scott Bratton handled the case.

A Chinese National was a legal permanent resident of the United States. Our client decided to go to school for undergraduate work in Canada during the last four years and was working for a year in Canada after graduation. The Client was attempting to return to the United States to see their family. When our client was going through a customs pre-clearance in Toronto. The inspecting officer noticed that our client had resided in Canada and not returned to the United States within the 6 month statutory period. The inspecting officer asked if our client intended to relinquish their legal permanent resident status or if they wanted a hearing in front of a judge. Unfortunately, our client answered yes to this question. But what was our client saying yes to? The client simply wanted to give up their status here in the United States. Although we advised our client to fight the case, our client wanted to give up their legal status since they were happily living in Canada but preserve their ability to one day return to the United States. Our team lead by Attorney Jason Lorenzon attempted to negotiate a settlement with the government whereby our client would not have to return. Unfortunately, the government attorney did not respond to our requests and our client had to be present for one hearing. Attorney Jason Lorenzon made the court well aware that our client simply wanted to abandon their green card and that this whole proceedings started because a CBP officer asked two questions in one sentence. Finally after several heated exchanges in Court between Attorney Lorenzon who underlined the fact that the charging document was issued by a government official not authorized to do so, the Government attorney backed off and a resolution was reached. The client upon their return to Canada had to go to the US consulate in Toronto to record that they left the United States. Attorney Lorenzon tried to negotiate the recording of our clients departure at a port of exit, but the Government was adamant that a person must go to the consulate. Our client went to the consulate, and was refused any documentation indicating that our client left the United States. Attorney Lorenzon advised our client to have a picture taken by a famous landmark. The client went to Niagara Falls got a picture, cross the border into the United States had their passport stamped and returned back to Canada and had the passport stamped on the Canadian Side. Copies of the passport stamps and pictures of our client in Niagara Falls were placed in a motion to terminate filed with the Immigration Court. The Immigration Judge terminated proceedings without any further hearings. Our team was able to assist our client getting the results they wanted and preserving a satisfactory way for them to come back to the United States in the future on another visa.

Our client's immigration case started in 1993 when he was placed in deportation proceedings. He failed to appear at his hearing and was ordered deported in absentia. He was only a minor at the time he first arrived. Over the years, he hired numerous immigration attorneys to try to assist in reopening his case. However, none were successful. He was then married to a United States citizen in 2001 and his I-130 was approved. If his deportation case was reopened, he could adjust status. Several attorneys tried unsuccessfully to reopen his case after 2001. In 2008, our client hired us to assist with his case. We were able to get his case reopened through a joint motion filed with ICE in New York. They agreed to reopen the case. The case was then set for a hearing on our client's adjustment of status application. In December 2009, the adjustment of status application was granted by an Immigration Judge in New York. After 16 years, our client is now a lawful permanent resident. This was obviously a wonderful Christmas gift for our client and his wonderful family, which includes two young children. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client from Africa met and married a United States citizen, and they had a child together. They filed an I-130 Petition/I-485 Application for a green card which was approved. Our client filed an I-751 Petition to remove the conditions on her green card since she was married less than two years at the time her green card application was approved. Our client and her husband were scheduled for an interview with USCIS and were interviewed separately. Our client's husband presented inaccurate information to the officer to cover up the fact that he was having an affair with another woman. USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny the I-751 Petition because of the discrepancies during the interview. Our client with the help of her former lawyer filed a response to the Notice showing that she was in a good faith marriage. She was shocked to find out about her husband's affair after the interview. Immigration denied the petition and put our client into removal proceedings with her children from a previous marriage. Our client was scheduled to appear in court with her children. She came to our office for help. She divorced her husband, and we filed a waiver of the I-751 Petition for those individuals who entered into a good faith marriage but the marriage was terminated through divorce. We asked for a continuance of her case with the Immigration Court based on the pending I-751 Petition which was approved. We helped her to assemble all necessary documents and prepared her for her I-751 interview. She attended the interview with our attorney and her I-751 Petition was approved in one day. We can now request that her case be terminated in the Immigration Court. Scott Bratton, Karim Berdiev, JP Sarmiento, and Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm.

Our client was found to be inadmissible when returning to the United States due to two old felony convictions. She is a lawful permanent resident. She was placed in removal proceedings and we were hired to represent her. We filed a motion to vacate the guilty pleas and were successful in vacating the convictions despite the fact that approximately ten years had passed since she had been convicted. We then filed a motion to terminate removal proceedings. In December 2009, removal proceedings were terminated. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client was ordered deported for failing to appear for his removal hearing. We filed a motion to reopen and argued that his failure to appear was due to the failure to receive proper notice and exceptional circumstances. In December 2009, the Immigration Court reopened the case. Our client can now pursue his asylum request. Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong & Associates.

A Chinese national was picked up by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement shortly after his BIA appeal was denied. Our firm filed the Notice of Appearance to 6th Circuit Appeal and Motion to Stay Removal for him the next day. But client called one morning from the Chicago Airport informing us that ICE was to deport him back to China. Our attorneys immediately contacted the officer in charge at ICE and also the ICE at Chicago airport to hold off the deportation pending 6th Circuit Court decision on the Motion to Stay Removal. Our attorney also contacted 6th Circuit Court to request emergency ruling on the Motion due to imminent deportation. Within an hour, the 6th Circuit ruled on and approved our client's Motion to Stay Removal. We were able to stop the client from deportation before he board the flight.

Mr. Zheng from Fuzhou, China has just experienced a dramatic moment in the afternoon of November 12, 2009.  Mr. Zheng was detained in April, 2009. Nothing was done by his prior attorney for his release. 7 days ago when we were retained by his desperate family members, there was little time left for us, as his travel documents had been issued. The situation was serious. Mr. Zheng could be deported at any time. We immediately visited him in the detention facility and filed Stay With ICE with a very good reason. 2 days ago Mr. Zheng was transferred to another detention facility. He was told 3 times that ICE was going to deport him 2 days later. It was understood that he and his family members were very worried. We contacted ICE many times to make sure that ICE had received our application and the application would be reviewed. This afternoon when Mr. Zheng was told one more time that for sure he was to be deported the next morning, he was about to crash. But 1 minute later another ICE officer informed us that our Stay With ICE was granted! We were able to give the right shut when dealing with ICE and successfully got Mr. Zheng out of jail. Now we have the time we need to reopen Mr. Zheng's case and bring him the end result, a Green Card.

A Chinese client was detained a while ago. His family retained us at the end of August, since they were not satisfied to his previous attorney's service. Due to client's 2 alien numbers and an outstanding deportation order, his case is quite complicated and difficult. We worked hard and closely with the client's family, wife and older brother, providing great service and helping them gather documents and information. We also successfully had every party involved coordinate. Not long after we filed Motion to Stay and 90-day review, our great team work brought exciting result: Client has been released, and has regained his long expected freedom. This case is handled by Debbie Lee, assisted by Jian and Vicky.

Prompt Action and Quality Service-a client is being released less than 24 hours after he hired us. A minister introduced a client to us, since the minister was very impressed to our quality service. The client was in jail and was very worried about his future. Right after the client and his girl friend hired us around 5 pm yesterday we filed Bond Motion to court immediately. Today, Deborah Lee, one of our great attorneys went to the court for the client's hearing, and our Bond Motion was granted. Now the client is being released from the detention facility. The client will retain us again for obtaining him his legal status. Once again, we'll do our magic to help the client.

One of our clients, a Chinese National, had a child with an American citizen and was married to him in China. They had the traditional wedding ceremony and the marriage was legally registered. When the USC husband came back to the United States, he petitioned for her to come to the United States. They had a year long courtship, child together, intended to live together. When she arrived in the United States in January 2008, after almost two years of living apart, love letters, money sent back to China for his wife and child, the husband did not want to live with her and kept her away from his home. For her birthday, he made her sign some papers as he told her, for her birthday present, she would get some money and to sign some other forms for her green card application. She did not know that she signed papers for a dissolution of marriage. She could not read or write or understand English. She never heard from her husband again, as he was living with another woman. Since the marriage under two years, she was subject to the conditional residency requirement and had to apply for a joint application. Since she was divorced, she could not apply with her husband. Our Attorney Jason Lorenzon prepared the I-751 petition to remove conditions with a waiver since she could not file the petition with her ex husband since the marriage was terminated and if she would be removed from the United States, her removal would result in an extreme hardship. Mr. Lorenzon filed the necessary applications and an extensive brief stating why the conditions on residence should be removed. The USCIS approved the application, and our client has a permanent green card!

Our client was convicted of drug trafficking under Ohio law. The provision under which he was convicted prohibited selling or offering to sell a controlled substance. DHS argued that this was an aggravated felony and that our client was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. We argued that our client's drug trafficking conviction is not an aggravated felony. In a very detailed analysis, the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed with our position and held that our client had not been convicted of a drug trafficking offense as defined under federal law. Thus, he was found eligible for cancellation of removal. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client was placed into removal proceedings after her naturalization application was denied because she had been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude. We obtained the criminal records and filed a motion to vacate one of the criminal convictions. After a hearing on the matter, the motion was granted. We then filed a motion to terminate removal proceedings with the Immigration Court. Upon considering the evidence submitted, the Immigration Court issued an order terminating removal proceedings. Scott Bratton and Jason Lorenzon handled the criminal case. Mr. Bratton handled the removal case.

Our client hired Margaret Wong & Associates after several lawyers told her that nothing could be done on her case. We reviewed the file and realized that she was eligible for adjustment of status with USCIS despite her final order of removal. This was because we had a basis to argue that she was an arriving alien. Arriving aliens can adjust status with USCIS despite a final removal order. We were not able to get her documents through the Freedom of Information Act as the Government considered her a fugitive because she failed to appear for removal. However, our client never received her letter stating that she appear for removal. Thus, we argued she was not a fugitive. We prepared the adjustment application and filed it with USCIS. We also prepared our client for the interview in New York. At the interview, the officer stated that we would get a decision in the mail. In August 2009, we received the approval notice. Our client is now a lawful permanent resident. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client was in deportation proceedings. We contested that she was subject to removal as charged by the Department of Homeland Security. At the hearing on the issue of whether our client is subject to deportation we were able to successfully argue that proceedings must be terminated. The Court granted our request to terminate proceedings. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client from Mexico was put into removal proceedings in December 2007. She had entered the country illegally in September 1994 by walking over the border from Mexico. She was a mother of two children. She came to be with her husband who was already in the United States. She was reunited with her husband and had two more children. But, her life here in the U.S. would be bittersweet as her marriage deteriorated, and she divorced her husband. She was a single mother who had to support four children, and she had no legal status in the U.S. Her ex-husband found love again and married a U.S. citizen. He had three children together with his new wife. He helped his two children from his prior marriage to get their green cards. Our client's four children all had legal status in the U.S., but our client was illegal with no hope in sight. She was put into proceedings, and she retained our firm to help her. We filed for cancellation of removal, which is a form of relief that requires 10 years continuous physical presence in the U.S., good moral character, no convictions of disqualifying offenses, and exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to qualifying relatives - USC or LPR spouses, parents, or children. We argued before the Immigration Judge that the children of our single mother of four would face extreme hardship if their mother were forced to return to Mexico. Our client's children would be forced to return to Mexico after living most if not all of their life in the United States. Her children were hard-working students. Our client was especially proud of one daughter who was diagnosed with a learning disability while she was in elementary school and had to attend special education classes the majority of her school career. These children faced serious threat of harm as they would have to return to Juarez, Mexico, their mother's hometown, if their mother were deported. Juarez is engulfed in the worst violence in Mexico as it is plagued with cartels facing off in control over the cocaine, heroin, and marijuana trade often with the help of corrupt police. These children also did not have the option of staying in the U.S. alone as they could not provide for themselves financially. They also could not rely on the help of their father who already struggled taking care of three children with his new wife. Taking into consideration these factors and more, the Immigration Judge granted our client's application. This single mother of four who has dedicated her whole life to providing for her children will now receive her green card. She can finally rest in the security that she will not be separated from her children. Our attorneys Scott Bratton and Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm with the assistance of Fabiola Cini.

Our client came to us after being married to his USC wife for more than two years. His original I-130 was denied due to a major mistake and mess up by USCIS. His wife's petition was eventually denied and reopened due to a mistake in not receiving an RFE. By the time the RFE was issued before it was responded to, our client was placed in deportation proceedings.
The night before a master calendar hearing, the I-130 was approved! Our attorney Jason Lorenzon filed a motion to terminate proceedings based upon the approved I-130. Our senior paralegal Mr. Ding filed a new I-130/I-485 application so that we had a pending I-485 application. Attorney Jason Lorenzon presented that to the DHS attorney who after reviewing the application did not oppose Mr. Lorenzon's motion and the deportation proceeding was terminated and our client is able to receive his greencard "adjustment of status" through the USCIS!

J.N., citizen of India, retained our office in 2007 to represent her in during removal proceedings before the Immigration Court. She was put in removal because overstayed her visitor visa. Our office filed an application for asylum before the Court. At the meantime our office had terminated removal proceedings of her husband's case and applied for his green card with CIS. His Green Card was approved and once the visa numbers were available our office applied for adjustment of status for his wife. This application was approved by the Immigration Judge and our client obtained her Green Card in 2009. Attorney Scott Bratton handled this case on behalf of Margaret Wong & Assoc.

Y.L., a native of China had been in the USA for over 10 years by the time she hired our office to help her obtaining Green Card. She had just given birth to her second child when she retained our office. We filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal due to changed circumstance since our client had violated China's one child policy. Her application for asylum was referred to the Immigration Court where our office then filed an application for cancellation of removal under section 240 A (b) of INA. One of our client's US children had a serious medical condition. We argued and provided sufficient evidence before the court that our client qualified for this benefit. Although the Immigration Judge denied the application for asylum, he approved her cancellation application and she is now a legal permanent resident.

Mr. J.G., a citizen of Mexico, entered the USA in or around 1992 illegally. He left the country due to problems he had had with a gang group but he had never filed an asylum application in the US. He had continuously resided in the US for over 15 years when he retained our office to help him obtain legal permanent residence. He had 3 USC minor children; one of them had serious medical conditions. First our office filed an asylum application which was not approved by CIS; it was referred to the Immigration Judge because it was untimely filed (not filed within one year from entry). Our office filed an application for cancellation of removal before the judge since our client had been resident of over 10 years, was a person of good moral character (no criminal convictions and had paid his taxes every year), and we gathered sufficient evidence that his deport would cause extreme and unusual hardship to his USC child who had medical issues. The judge ultimately approved the cancellation application in 2009 and our client received his Green Card within a few weeks.

A client originally from Romania had an I-485 Greencard approved based upon her marriage to a United Citizen States Citizen Spouse. After she became pregnant, the husband disappeared. Our client was placed in deportation proceedings. Our office filed an I-751 Joint Petition to Remove Conditional Residency Requirement with a waiver for joint filing since her husband went AWOL. Our office was successful in getting that petition approved. Our office then filed a Motion to Terminate Proceedings with the Immigration Court which was granted the same day it was filed. Congratulations to our client who is a legal permanent resident and also eligible to become a USC!

A Chinese client came to the United States with a fake passport. He was an unaccompanied minor and he presented the fake passport to the customs officer. Eventually he was paroled to the United States for removal proceedings and he lost the case and already had a removal order. He then married a United States Citizen. Afterwards he consulted with our firm if anything could be done to him. Since he was paroled and an arriving alien, he could get his green card in the United States through marriage. But since he has a final order, the I-130 filing should include a Request for Exemption with supporting documents. Our firm prepared those and filed the Petition and the Permanent Resident Application. We also had to prepare an I-601 Waiver of Inadmissbility because of the fake passport issue. There were no medical hardships so we had to argue the equities - length of Petitioner's stay in the US, family ties, the fact that the alien was an unaccompanied minor when he entered the US, the fact that he had no criminal records etc. We accompanied the client at his interview in the Manhattan CIS Office. The client's case was eventually approved and he now has his green card. Attorney JP Sarmiento handled the case.

We were hired after our client's adjustment of status application had been denied. He was detained by ICE based on a prior order of removal and was about to be deported. However, as an arriving alien, our client was eligible to apply for adjustment of status with CIS despite the removal order. We believed that the adjustment application was improperly denied. We filed a lawsuit in federal court and a request for a preliminary injunction. Our client was then released from ICE custody and his adjustment of status application was reopened. In May 2009, we received the approval of the adjustment of status application. Our client is now a lawful permanent resident. Scott Bratton and Francis Fungsang handled the case.

Our client from Malaysia hired us to handle her removal proceedings. We filed an application for cancellation of removal based on hardship to her United States citizen child. We submitted a substantial number of documents to support the case. After a hearing on the case, the Immigration Court in New York granted the cancellation of removal application in May 2009. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client had a final order of removal from many years ago. He came to our office and after looking into the matter determined he would be eligible for NACARA if his case was reopened. We filed a motion to reopen along with the NACARA application with the Immigration Court in New York. The case was reopened in May 2009. Our client can now pursue his NACARA application. Scott Bratton handled the case.

We were able to obtain a grant of cancellation of removal for our client who had been convicted of drug trafficking under Ohio law. Our client was detained during removal proceedings. We argued that drug trafficking under Ohio law is not necessarily an aggravated felony and that the record of the case does not establish that our client's conviction was an aggravated felony. Both sides submitted briefs. In a written decision, the Immigration Judge found that the drug trafficking conviction was not an aggravated felony. The case was set for a hearing on the cancellation of removal application. After a lengthy hearing, the Judge granted cancellation of removal. DHS appealed the Immigration Judge's decision. In May 2009, the Board issued a decision finding that our client's drug trafficking conviction was not an aggravated felony and upheld the grant of cancellation of removal. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Client from China was detained in Calhoun County Jail in Michigan. He had no previous immigration case. He entered the US legally and lived with his girlfriend in New York. They got unlucky when they visited a friend in Detroit and due to construction work and confusing detours, they ended up at the Canadian border. They were turned back and that's when our client got placed in jail. He had no immediate relatives in the United States and he was not eligible for a green card. He also owned no property. We drove 5 hours to visit the client and gather information. At the bond hearing in Detroit, we argued his lack of criminal record, age and the fact that he has some aches and pains on his shoulder, claim for withholding of removal, and evidence that he had a permanent address, to argue that he was not a flight risk. The Judge granted his release on a 6000 bond. JP Sarmiento worked on the case.

A Liberian National who had a final order of deportation was apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency in Charlotte North Carolina and taken to the Atlanta area. After several hours, our team was able to find out that his deportation was imminent and we found out that the client never received notice of his hearing in immigration court. A Motion to Reopen was immediately filed with the immigration court and his imminent deportation was stopped.

We were hired after our client was placed in removal proceedings for a criminal conviction. We filed a motion to terminate proceedings arguing that the criminal conviction did not render out client subject to removal. The Immigration Judge terminated proceedings. Scott Bratton handled the case.

A Chinese National who has a final order of deportation was granted an extra sixty day extension to depart the United States. She has a USC child who is finishing up her third grade of primary school and our team was able to negotiate with ICE an extra 60 day extension in addition to two thirty day extensions!

A Mexican National entered illegally and was detained due to one of the ICE workplace raids last summer. He had a young child on the way with his USC girlfriend. We were able to negotiate Deferred Action Status and get him work authorization. He was able to stay in the United States and witness the birth of his first born child!

We were able to successfully reopen a case where the Order to Show Cause was erroneously issued in 1994. Our client should have been placed in exclusion proceedings rather than deportation proceedings. Thus, the Judge reopened the case and terminated proceedings. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client hired us after he was detained by immigration officials due to a final order of removal. He was an arriving alien and eligible to adjust status with USCIS despite his removal order. However, the application filed by his prior attorney was erroneously denied and ICE was trying to deport our client. We filed a federal lawsuit and temporary restraining order arguing that USCIS' decision was erroneous. Within two weeks, our client was released from ICE custody and his adjustment of status case was reopened by USCIS. Scott Bratton is handling the case.

Our client hired us after he was detained in immigration custody and placed in removal proceedings for several felony convictions. We were able to negotiate his release and argue that he was statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal. We filed a cancellation of removal application. After hearing the evidence, the Immigration Judge denied the application finding that cancellation was not warranted as a matter of discretion. We appealed the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board overturned the decision of the Immigration Judge and found that cancellation of removal should be granted. Scott Bratton handled the case.

An Indian national who faced religious persecution was placed in proceedings; however, our team filed an appeal, which was granted. In addition to filing the appeal, we were able to obtain work authorization for one year.

We were just retained to handle a case that was pending at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was trying to deport our client while the case was pending with the Sixth Circuit. We then filed a request for stay of removal. The motion for stat was opposed by the Government. The Sixth Circuit granted the stay of removal. Therefore, our client is permitted to remain in the United States while his case is pending. Scott Bratton is handling the case for Margaret Wong and Associates.

Our client hired us after she was in immigration custody because she had a final order of removal and her motion to reopen had been denied. She was married to a United States citizen but did not attend her hearing because she did not receive notice. We appealed the Judge's denial of the motion to reopen to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board agreed that our client did not receive adequate notice of the proceedings. The case was remanded to the Board and we applied for adjustment of status. In February 2009, the adjustment of status application was granted by the Immigration Court. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client applied for cancellation of removal based on hardship to her children if she was deported. After a hearing on the case in New York, the Immigration Judge granted cancellation of removal.

Our client was placed into removal proceedings after her I-751 was denied for a second time. We refilled the I-751 and were able to get several continuances in the removal case. After an interview on the I-751, the petition was approved by USCIS. We then filed a motion to terminate removal proceedings. In February 2009, removal proceedings were terminated. Scott Bratton handled the case.

We represented a person in removal proceedings whose TPS application had been denied two times by CIS. We renewed the application before the Immigration Judge. After considering the evidence and testimony, the Judge granted TPS. Scott Bratton represented our client.

Our client hired us to represent him in removal proceedings. He then decided he wanted to depart the United States and attempt to come back on another visa. We only had a very short time to secure voluntary departure or our client would have had a ten year bar to returning. If we secured voluntary departure before one year of unlawful presence, he would not face any bar. We were able to work it out with the Court and obtained a 120-day period of voluntary departure. Our client will now be able to obtain a visa and return to the United States without facing any bars to returning. Scott Bratton and JP Sarmiento handled the case.

Our team was successful with an appeal from the BIA remanded back to the Immigration Judge. Our lead attorney Scott Bratton filed a Cancellation Case for a national of China who had a significant criminal record. The client has lived in the United States for most of his adult life. Our trial attorney, Jason Lorenzon went to the final hearing and informed the court that our client completed the background request for biometrics. The government attorney argued that there was nine pages of criminal records and he could not go through it then. Mr Lorenzon informed the court, that everything is on the record and this case should be approved since all the government needs to approve was that our client had no criminal record from the past hearing, which he did not. The government attorney agreed and his Cancellation of Removal was granted, the order was issued, and our client was very happy.

Our client hired us after he was detained due to an outstanding removal order. He was found by an Immigration Judge to be subject to removal for the commission of a crime involving moral turpitude. The crime at issue was food stamp trafficking. He then missed his hearing on his waiver application. We were able to get the case reopened. After the case was reopened, we asked the Judge to reconsider the prior decision finding that food stamp trafficking was a crime involving moral turpitude. We also filed a comprehensive brief addressing the issue. Upon consideration of our brief, the Immigration Judge agreed and terminated removal proceedings. Our client can now apply for citizenship. Scott Bratton represented our client.

When our client hired us, he was in removal proceedings. He was from Mexico and has lived in the United States over ten years. We argued that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his daughter who had some medical problems. After a hearing on this matter in December 2008, the Immigration Judge agreed and granted cancellation of removal. Scott Bratton handled the case.

We were hired after our client received a notice of intent to revoke his green card because he was granted permanent residence in error. He had previously been in removal proceedings and while his case was pending with the Board, his attorney did not file a motion to reopen as he was permitted to do under the V visa regulations. Our client was married to a permanent resident and could have had his proceedings reopened and stayed had the proper motion been filed. The motion was not filed and our client received a final removal order. He later received his green card, which was improper since he had a final order. We immediately filed request to DHS to join in a motion to reopen the deportation case and explained the unfortunate circumstances of the case. After consideration of our motion, DHS agreed to reopen the case and terminate proceedings in the case. Lori Pinjuh, Scott Bratton, and Francis Fungsang handled the case.

Our clients were citizens of China. We applied for withholding of removal with the Immigration Court in New York. After hearing the evidence, withholding of removal was granted for both clients by the Immigration Judge in December 2008. This allows our clients to remain in the United States. In a few years, their children can petition for them and they will be able to apply for adjustment of status.