Federal Court Appeals | Success Stories - Margaret Wong and Associates, Ohio Immigration Lawyers

Federal Court Appeals, BIA, AAO, and other Appeals

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, the client violated his probation on the criminal case and the criminal judge conducted new proceedings and sentenced him 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.

Last year, we filed a Petition for Review on a case where the Board had denied a remand. The request for a remand had been made by former counsel because our client was eligible for adjustment of status with USCIS as an arriving alien. Under the regulations, only USCIS had jurisdiction over an adjustment of status application. We argued at the Second Circuit that it was inappropriate for the Board to deny a remand solely because only USCIS had jurisdiction over the adjustment of status application. His application would be moot if he was deported before it could be ruled upon. In December 2008, the Second Circuit issued a decision vacating the decision of the Board and finding that the Board could not deny the motion to remand solely on the ground that the immigration judge could not grant relief in the case. Zheng v. Mukasey, 2008 WL 5174773 (2d. Cir. 2008) The case was sent back to the Board for further proceedings. After briefing, DHS has agreed that the case should be sent back to the immigration judge to allow our client the opportunity to have his adjustment of status case ruled upon by USCIS in the near future. The interview should be scheduled within the next month. Our client can now pursue his adjustment of status application without fear of being picked up and deported prior to the application being adjudicated. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client came to us after he already had a final removal order. We filed a motion to reopen with the Board of Immigration Appeals as well as a request that DHS agree to a joint motion to reopen. We came up with a novel legal argument that he was actually eligible to adjust status now and at his last hearing under the Child Status Protection Act. We also argued that although he technically overstayed his voluntary departure, he was not subject to the 10-year bar. After the Board denied his motions, DHS agreed to join in a motion to reopen proceedings and terminate the case so that our client could adjust status with CIS. In December 2008, the Board granted the motion and terminated proceedings. Our client can now apply for his green card with CIS. Scott Bratton and JP Sarmiento handled the case.

The Board of Immigration Appeals remanded a case in December 2008 for a further hearing on whether our client was subject to removal for an aggravated felony. We did not handle this part of the case with the Immigration Court previously. We argued to the Board that the Judge improperly interpreted the statute on how to calculate the amount of money involved in the offense. Scott Bratton is handling the case.

Second Circuit Victory Our client hired us while his case was pending with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Our client had filed for asylum. Our client also had an I-130/485 application pending with USCIS. He was eligible for adjustment of status with USCIS but could not file it with the Immigration Court because he was considered an "arriving alien." While his case was on appeal with the Board, our client's former attorney filed a motion to remand arguing that the case should be remanded and held in abeyance because otherwise our client could be deported without having his green card application adjudicated. The Board found it could not grant a remand because our client was not eligible to adjust status with the Court. Additionally, the Board faulted the evidence submitted by the prior attorney. We filed a brief with the Second Circuit arguing that the decision on the remand was improper and that the Board does have the authority to remand the case or hold the case in abeyance where the person is applying for adjustment of status with USCIS. Otherwise a person may be deported despite being eligible to get his green card with USCIS. The Second Circuit agreed and vacated the Board's decision in December 2008 and granted the Petition for Review. The case was sent back to the Board of Immigration Appeals for further proceedings since the motion to remand could not be denied on the grounds set forth by the Board. This will give us the time that we need to get the adjustment of status application approved since our client no longer has a final deportation order. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client hired us to appeal his case to the federal appeals court after his asylum application was denied. Our client was from Nigeria and claimed he had problems with Muslims. The Sixth Circuit concluded that the IJ's adverse credibility finding was not warranted and remanded the case for a new hearing. We represented our client at the new hearing. After hearing the evidence, the IJ again made an adverse credibility finding and found that our client had not established past persecution. We appealed to the Board. In November 2008, a three member panel of the Board sustained our appeal and overturned the decision of the Immigration Judge. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Along with hard work and excellent knowledge of the law, faith and hope are qualities our attorneys, paralegals, and various staff consider to be extremely important in assisting each individual client. One case that highlights such a belief involves our Yugoslavian client, a client in search of safety, acceptance, and the freedom of thought and expression. Our client was first admitted to the United States as a B-2 visitor. A B-2 visa generally covers visits to the United States that involve pleasure or medical treatment. Our client fell out of status, at which point she contacted us in great need of assistance. For years, our client had been facing both political and religious persecution in her native country of Serbia. After spending years in the United States, her return would further subject her to the very same discrimination and persecution from which she initially fled. With the assistance of Scott Bratton, our client filed an I-589-Application for Asylum-but was denied by the Immigration Judge, and subsequently placed in the process of removal. With great diligence, Scott Bratton appealed the Immigration Judge's decision, citing the refusal to consider key evidence. Shortly following the appeal, the decision was overturned and our client was granted asylum, thus protecting her from the dangers of discrimination and persecution. About a year later, our client filed an I-485-Adjustment to Permanent Resident Status-and was approved. Our client, and medical school graduate, now lives safely and freely in the United States, faithfully pursuing opportunities that at one time were nothing more than a dream.

Our client was detained by immigration officials immediately after the Board of Immigration Appeals denied his case. He then hired our office to file an appeal with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. We also filed an emergency motion to stay removal. After consideration of the motion, the Sixth Circuit ruled in our favor. Based on this ruling, we were able to get our client released from immigration custody. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client hired us to appeal his removal order to the Board of Immigration Appeals. We filed an appeal and argued a number of issues including legal defects in the Immigration Judge's decision. After filing our brief, the Board agreed that there was a legal defect in the decision and remanded the case to the Immigration Judge. Scott Bratton filed the brief.

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

Before hiring our office, our client, a citizen of Belarus, had applied for asylum which was denied by Immigration Court and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). His previous attorney never informed him that his case was denied by BIA so he missed the opportunity to appeal his case to the 6^th Circuit. Our client had a final order of deportation. He hired our office in 2002 and we filed FOIA to obtain all his records. Upon receiving FOIA we filed a Motion to reissue decision with BIA. BIA reissued its decision (which had dismissed the appeal on the asylum case). We could now appeal the BIA decision to the 6^th Circuit. The 6^th circuit granted our motion to stay while the appeal was pending so our client would not be deported. Meanwhile or client married a USC and we filed I-130. Once the I-130 was approved we filed MTR (Motion to Reopen) with BIA. The case was reopened and sent for further proceedings before the Immigration Court since our client was now eligible to file for Green Card. We then filed his Green Card application with the Court. His case was approved and our client received his Green Card in 2008. Scott Bratton handled this case for our office assisted by Fabiola Cini and Francis Ramirez.

Our client, a citizen of Israel, was ordered to be removed from the USA in 2003 because he failed to appear for his hearing before Immigration Court. He was a legal permanent resident who was placed in proceedings after being convicted of Food Stamp Trafficking. Our office was retained in 2006 after he was detained by ICE. We filed a Motion to Reopen (MTR) with Immigration Court, but it was denied. We then appealed the case to Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). We argued that our client was victim of ineffective assistance of counsel because his previous counsel did not inform the court that our client had moved and also told him that his case was still pending with the immigration court. BIA sustained our appeal in 2008. Now our client has been scheduled for a hearing before the Immigration Court and he will be eligible to get his status back after filing I-191, Application for Advance Permission to Return to Unrelinquished Domicile.

We appealed the IJ's decision denying a continuance based on a pending labor certification. We are now at the I-140 stage and need time to get the I-140 petition approved since our client is in removal proceedings and has no other relief. Based on our arguments, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded the case to the Immigration Judge. This will give us the time we need to complete the I-140 processing so our client can apply for lawful permanent resident status. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client is married to a United States citizen and applied for adjustment of status. The application was denied because it was alleged that our client knowingly misrepresented material facts when she filed a false asylum application after she first came to the United States. Although she was eligible for a waiver, the waiver application was denied. At this time, she hired our firm to file an appeal of the waiver denial to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). We filed an appeal of the waiver denial and also argued that our client did not need a waiver because a travel agency prepared the asylum application and she was unaware of the contents. After considering our brief, the AAO agreed with us and concluded that our client did not need a waiver. Thus, the case was sent back to CIS so that adjustment of status could be granted.

Our client, citizen of Jamaica, entered the US as a non-immigrant visitor in April 2000 and overstayed his visa. He married a USC in February 2001. The couple separated for several months and our client's application for adjustment of status was denied in April 2001 as a result of withdrawal of the I-130. The Immigration Judge ordered his removal in August 2004, denying both withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed this decision in December 2005. Shortly after the BIA issued the decision our client and his wife reconciled and went back together living as husband and wife. A new I-130, including evidence of shared life such as pictures from the wedding, other family pictures, apartment lease etc., was filed and is still pending. One month after filing the new I-130 our office filed a timely motion before the BIA, seeking to reopen his case in order to adjust his status pending the approval of the I-130. The BIA denied the motion to reopen finding the previous withdrawal of the I-130 and the recent reconciliation to be suspect in regard to the validity of this marriage. Our office filed petition for review of the decision of the BIA with the Six Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that the BIA abused its discretion in denying our motion to reopen the case. In May 2008 the Six Circuit Court of Appeals granted our petition for review and remanded this case to BIA. The case is currently pending with the BIA. Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong & Assoc. with the collaboration of J.P. Sarmiento, Francis Ramirez, and Fabiola Cini.

In October 2006 we filed a Non Immigrant Worker Visa petition for an English client. The category requested was L-1A, for a worker in an executive or managerial position. His current employer, a company in UK, wanted him to work for the subsidiary distributor in Ohio. In December 2007 we received a Request for Evidence (RFE) from USCIS, since they wanted more evidence showing that our client would work in an executive or managerial position. Together with the employer we prepared all the documents and in February 2007 we responded the RFE attaching detailed and abundant evidence that proved he would work in that kind of position. Surprisingly though, USCIS denied the petition. Their decision stated that the company had failed to establish that our client would work in an executive or managerial position. The decision went further, it speculated that the company didn't really need a manager because it was small and the salary offered was not a usual salary for a manager. They failed to really understand the compensation offered, since that amount was only the portion that the subsidiary American company would pay, and there was a full package of benefits plus salary he would receive directly from the UK company. We where outraged by the decision, and made it our duty to appeal of it, which we did on April 2007. Unfortunately the UK company made our client return to UK and offered him another position. Finally, in March 2008 the AAO (Administrative Appeals Office) granted the appeal and approved the L-1A visa. We gave our client the news, and now they know they can bring him as a manager to USA in case it suits the company's best interests The case was handled by our attorney, Lori Pinjuh in collaboration with Karim Berdiev.

Our client was denied adjustment of status by an Immigration Judge based on the finding that he was not statutorily eligible for adjustment of status. We appealed the Immigration Judge's decision. In February 2008, the Board of Immigration agreed with our argument and found our client was eligible to adjust status. The Board remanded the case to the Immigration Judge for consideration of the adjustment of status application on the merits. Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong & Associates

Our clients retained us to handle an appeal with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Another attorney filed the Petition for Review and then we took over the case. After we took over the case, the Government moved to dismiss the case under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine alleging our clients were fugitives for failing to report to ICE as requested. The fugitive disentitlement doctrine precludes court review where a person is a fugitive. We filed an extensive response arguing that the doctrine was not applicable to our case. After consideration of our the briefs, the Sixth Circuit agreed with our position and refused to dismiss the case. Scott Bratton represented our clients.

We were successfully able to secure a stay of removal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals just two days prior to our client’s deportation date. We had taken over the case from another attorney. Our client is now eligible for release from DHS custody and can remain in the US while his case is pending. Scott Bratton is working on this case.

In October 2006, our office was retained to file a mandamus action in federal court to compel CIS to issue a decision on our clients’ I-130 petition and the I-485 application. Within 3 weeks of filing, the I-130 petition was approved and our client was granted adjustment of status. Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong & Associates.

Our client handled Margaret Wong & Associates to file a lawsuit in federal court after his B-2 application and subsequent H-1B change of status request was denied by CIS. CIS held that our client was inadmissible, which precluded his change of status request to a B-2. CIS then found that since his B-2 was denied, his H-1B change of status request, which was filed while the B-2 application was pending, must also be denied since he was out of status. We filed a Complaint in federal court in Lincoln, Nebraska arguing that the B-2 change of status request was erroneously denied. We also argued that the H-1B change of status request was also erroneously denied since our client should have been considered in status at the time of filing. Subsequent to filing the Complaint, CIS reversed its prior decisions and granted the B-2 change of status and the H-1B change of status request retroactively to reflect that our client has always maintained valid status in the US. This put him back in valid status, allowing him to timely request an extension of his H-1B status and to pursue his green card. Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong & Associates.

When our client retained Margaret Wong and Associates, her asylum claim had been denied by an immigration judge in California and the Board of Immigration Appeals. We then filed a Petition for Review with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On appeal, we argued that the Board and immigration judge failed to apply the proper legal standard for cases where the asylum applicant established past persecution. Additionally, we argued that the Board and immigration judge erroneously concluded that our client was ineligible for asylum because she had firmly resettled in another country. In making this finding, the Board and immigration judge erroneously applied an incorrect legal standard for firm resettlement. In June 2006, the Ninth Circuit agreed with our arguments and granted the Petition for Review. The case was remanded to the Board for further consideration in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong and Associates.

An alien came from India in 1993 without inspection. In 2007, he, along with his family, was ordered to be removed in absentia for failure to appear at the hearings served to them. Later both husband and wife were taken into custody. It was then that our clients retained our services. Our attorney Scott Bratton, assisted by J.P Sarmiento, went to the Court and after talking to our clients got to know the true picture. Our client was actively involved in local politics in India. While he worked to help the community, he encountered people from opposition party who were after his life. He managed to escape the country and came to U.S. Later his wife joined him in 1997. They were served with notices from the Court but could not attend it, as they did not know English at that time. They asked a friend of theirs to translate for them but he dismissed it saying it was nothing important. Later their children also came in 2000 as their lives were in grave danger in their home country. Fully aware of the circumstances we decided to help them by filing a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act). FOIA is a right to public to information, and makes provisions for individuals to obtain information about their entire case. We received the documentation from FOIA in December 2007 and filed a 90 day custody review on behalf our client and his wife. Our first request was dismissed, but later our attorney proved that our client and his family had no criminal background and they were not even engaged in any activities jeopardizing the country's security. Finally, our request was accepted next time and they were out of jail in January 2008.Since our clients had already applied for their adjustment of status long ago, we had to file for their work authorization which was expiring soon. An I-765 was filed for our client and his wife in May 2008 and they had their fingerprints taken later. In June 2008 they got their work permits. We are hopeful that soon they will get their green cards and will live here peacefully with their daughters, who are getting good education here.

Our client was denied asylum by an Immigration Judge. We filed an appeal and argued that the Judge’s decision was erroneous, especially with respect to her analysis of the credibility issue, which was central to the denial. After considering our arguments, the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed and concluded that the credibility analysis was flawed. Thus, our client’s case was sent back to the Immigration Judge for further consideration in light of the Board’s findings. Scott Bratton handled the appeal.

When our client came to our office, she had just found out that her appeal of her asylum claim was denied by the Board of Immigration Appeals five months earlier. She had never received a copy of the Board’s decision from her old attorney. The problem was that she was unable to appeal the decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals because the 30 day period for filing an appeal had expired months before she found out her appeal was denied. Our office filed a Motion to Reopen with the Board of Immigration Appeals asking that the Board reissue its decision so that our client could file an appeal with the federal appellate court. In June 2006, the Motion was granted and the Board reissued its decision. Our client can now appeal her asylum denial to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and concurrently request employment authorization. Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong and Associates.

Adjustment of Status Granted by Immigration Judge

When our client retained Margaret Wong and Associates, she was pursuing asylum with her parents and the case had been denied by the Board of Immigration Appeals. At the time, our client advised us that she had recently married a United States citizen. We filed an I-130 on her behalf and filed an appeal with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. After the I-130 was filed, we also filed a Motion to Reopen based on the pending I-130 petition. The Motion was granted and the case was remanded to the Immigration Judge to await adjudication of the I-130. Subsequently, the I-130 petition was granted and we filed an adjustment of status application with the Immigration Judge. In February 2006, the Immigration Judge granted adjustment of status. Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong and Associates.

When our clients asylum case was denied by the Board of Immigration Appeals, we filed a Petition for Review with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Board concluded that any persecution suffered by our client was not on account of political opinion and/or imputed political opinion. In our brief, we argued that the Ninth Circuit improperly denied asylum and that there was a nexus between the persecution and our client’s political opinion and/or imputed political opinion. After discussions with the Government attorney, we reached a settlement where the case would be remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals for reconsideration of the asylum claim under the proper legal standard. The Ninth Circuit then vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the case for further evaluation of our client’s asylum case. Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong & Associates.

MARGARET WONG AND ASSOCIATES WINS PRECEDENT SETTING CASE AT THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

On February 8, 2006, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a precedent decision on the important issue of whether a criminal conviction that is vacated under Ohio Revised Code Section 2943.031 can still be used for immigration purposes. Matter of Adamiak, 23 I&N Dec. 878 (BIA 2006). Ohio Revised Code Section 2943.031 requires Ohio state courts to advise a non-citizen criminal defendant that a criminal conviction may result in deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization. The statute also gives the defendant the ability to vacate the criminal conviction where the advisement was not given. The Department of Homeland Security and many immigration judges had concluded that despite the fact the conviction was vacated under § 2943.031, it could still be used for immigration purposes.

In Matter of Adamiak, the Board held that a conviction that is vacated under R.C. § 2943.031 can no longer be used for immigration purposes. The holding means that our client’s conviction, which was vacated under R.C. § 2943.031, is no longer a valid conviction for immigration purposes. Thus, the vacated conviction could not be used to establish whether our client was subject to removal from the United States. It also could not be used to determine whether our client was eligible for cancellation of removal. This is an extremely important case that will impact many cases not just in Ohio, but in other states that have statutes similar to R.C. § 2943.031.

Scott Bratton and Margaret Wong handled the case.

In Hegyi v. Gonzales, the Sixth Circuit held that our client's case must be remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals because the Board failed to properly consider the argument that our client did not overstay her voluntary departure. The Sixth Circuit held that we made a strong argument that our client did not overstay her period of voluntary departure. If she did not overstay her voluntary departure, she would be eligible for adjustment of status. The case was sent back to the Board for consideration of our argument. Scott Bratton handled the case at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

After his case was denied by the Board of Immigration Appeals, our client retained us to file an appeal with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In his appeal, we challenged the Immigration Judge's adverse credibility finding that served as the basis for the denial of his asylum claim. The Sixth Circuit agreed with our argument that the Judge's adverse credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence and vacated the Judge's and BIA's decision denying asylum. Scott Bratton handled this case for Margaret Wong & Associates.

Our client hired our office to appeal the denial of a motion to reopen with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The basis for the motion was that our client wanted to apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In his Second Circuit appeal, we argued that the Board's decision was inadequate as the Board failed to apply the proper standard for reopening under CAT and that although our client's asylum claim was denied years earlier, he was still eligible for relief under CAT. The Second Circuit agreed and remanded the case to the Board for further consideration of the motion to reopen, We then filed a detailed brief with the Board arguing that reopening was appropriate. The Board reconsidered its earlier denial and reopened the case. When the reopened case came back before the Immigration Judge, our client was able to apply for adjustment of status as he was married to a US citizen and had an approved he I-130. He could not have previously moved to reopen on this ground as the 90-day time limit for motions to reopen had long passed when the I-130 was approved. After hearing evidence of the adjustment of status application, our client's adjustment of status application was approved and he is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Scott Bratton handled the case from the Second Circuit forward except that Troy Murphy represented our client at the adjustment of status hearing.

Win in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals - Iao v. Gonzales, 04-1700, 2005 WL 545278 On March 9, 2005, the Seventh Circuit, in a published opinion, granted our client’s Petition for Review and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Our client is a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China. She applied for asylum based on her fear of returning to China due to her participation in the Falun Gong spiritual movement. She testified that she was targeted by authorities due to her participation in Falun Gong. After hearing evidence on her asylum claim, the Immigration Judge denied her asylum application, giving five grounds for his denial. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge without issuing a separate opinion. Our firm was retained after the Board’s denial of her appeal. We filed a Petition for Review with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In the brief, we argued that the decision of the Immigration Judge was unreasoned and unsupported by the evidence. The five stated reasons for the denial were not supported by the evidence. The Seventh Circuit agreed with our analysis of the case and remanded the case back to the Board for a rational analysis of the evidence. The Seventh Circuit addressed each of the five stated grounds for the denial of asylum and agreed that they did not constitute a proper basis to deny asylum. The Court stated that if our client practiced Falun Gong, as she testified she did, or if she attempted to practice it upon her return to China, she would face a substantial likelihood of persecution. Based on the unreasoned decision of the Immigration Judge, the Seventh Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings in light of its opinion. Scott Bratton represented our client in her appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacates the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Immigration Judge and remands the case for a new asylum hearing – Braho v. Gonzales, No. 02-4689 On February 26, 2005, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted our client’s Petition for Review and sent the case back to the Immigration Judge for a new hearing on his asylum case. Our client, a native and citizen of Albania, applied for asylum before the Immigration Judge in New York, New York. The Judge denied asylum and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge. After the Board of Immigration Appeals issued its decision, Margaret Wong & Associates was retained to handle the appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On appeal, we challenged numerous aspects of the Immigration Judge’s decision. The Judge failed to adequately consider and weigh the evidence. This deprived our client of a full and fair asylum hearing. In light of the Second Circuit’s decision, the prior decisions of the Immigration Judge and BIA were vacated entirely and the case was remanded for a new hearing and proper consideration of our client’s evidence in support of his asylum claim. Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong and Associates.

After his appeal was denied by the Board of Immigration Appeals, our client came to our Margaret Wong & Associates to assess his options. We discovered that he had a prior I-140 approval as an alien of extraordinary ability. We filed both a Petition for Review with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and a Motion to Reopen based on the approved I-140. The case was reopened by the Board and sent back to the Immigration Judge for an adjustment of status hearing. The Immigration Judge granted adjustment of status.

In an update to a prior posting, we had previously obtained a remand from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for reconsideration of a Motion to Reopen to apply for relied under the Convention Against Torture. The Board agreed to reopen the case finding that contrary to its earlier ruling, our client was prima facie eligible for relief under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. The case was remanded to the Immigration Judge. Our client is married to a U.S. citizen and is the beneficiary of an approved I-130 visa petition. He is now applying for adjustment of status before the Immigration Judge. Scott Bratton represented our client in all proceedings starting with the Second Circuit appeal.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals grants Petition for Review and Remands case because the decision denying asylum was unreasoned. In Guchshenkov v. Ashcroft, No. 03-1392 (7th Cir. April 29, 2004), the United States Court of Appeals granted Guchshenkov's Petition for Review and remanded the case because the decision denying asylum was unreasoned and not supported by substantial evidence. Our client, who hired us after his appeal was denied by the Board of Immigration Appeals, filed a Petition for Review with the Seventh Circuit in which we argued that the Immigration Judge and Board improperly denied his asylum claim. The Seventh Circuit found that the reasons given by the Immigration Judge and Board in denying the asylum claim were not supported by the evidence. The order of removal was vacated and the cases returned to the Immigration Court for further proceedings. The Court also urged that the case be reassigned to another immigration judge due to the "striking inadequacy of the analysis" by the judge who handled the case initially.

Eight District Court of Appeals holds that the trial court erroneously denied Appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea without conducting an evidentiary hearing*

In State v. Creary, No. 82767 ( Ohio 8th Dist. 2004), the Eighth District Court of Appeals held that the trial court erroneously denied Creary's motion to withdraw his guilty plea without conducting an evidentiary hearing. In his motion, Creary argued that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea due to ineffective assistance of counsel. He claimed that his lawyer misinformed him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. Although the Court fully advised Creary of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea pursuant to R.C. § 2943.031, the Eighth District held that a hearing was required because Creary credibly alleged that he was misadvised by counsel about the immigration consequences of his plea and that he would not have pleaded guilty absent the misinformation. Accordingly, the case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing on Creary's motion. Scott Bratton represented

*The State of Ohio filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court asking the Court to accept the case for review. Our office filed a response arguing that the case was not appropriate for review by the Ohio Supreme Court. In August 2004, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to exercise jurisdiction. Therefore, the decision of the Eighth District stands and Creary will get an evidentiary hearing on his claim.

Sixth Circuit holds that a stay of voluntary departure can be granted by a federal appellate court pending adjudication of a petition for review

In an issue of first impression in the Sixth Circuit, the Court of Appeals held that it is authority to grant a stay of voluntary departure pending adjudication of a Petition for Review. Nwakanma v. Ashcroft, No. 03-4317, 2003 FED App. 0436P (6th Cir. 2003). The Government opposed a stay of voluntary departure, arguing that the Sixth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to issue a stay. T he Sixth Circuit disagreed and held that a grant of a stay of voluntary departure will be reviewed under the same standard as a stay of removal. The Court then granted the request for a stay of removal and a stay of voluntary departure pending adjudication of the Petition for Review. Attorney Scott Bratton represented Nwakanma.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio held the Board of Immigration Appeals erroneously concluded that our client was ineligible for cancellation of removal due to a conviction for an aggravated felony. Liao v. Rabbett, 1:03CV1166 (N.D. Ohio 2003) The District Court found that our client's drug possession conviction, which was a fifth-degree felony under Ohio law, was not an aggravated felony. Thus, the District Court found that our client was eligible to apply for cancellation of removal.