Deportation

Our client hired us to file an application for adjustment of status on his behalf.  He had been granted asylum over ten years ago but was told by many lawyers not to file his application for adjustment of status due to a felony criminal conviction for theft.  He had tried to vacate the conviction but was unsuccessful.  We told him that we could file the application on his behalf as well as a waiver (although we would argue a waiver was unnecessary because this conviction was not one for a crime involving moral turpitude).  We filed the application and Scott Bratton attended the adjustment of status interview in Baltimore, Maryland.  Mr. Bratton also filed an application for a waiver (I-602) along with supporting documentation and an argument as to why a waiver should be granted if USCIS deems a waiver necessary.  In May 2013, USCIS granted our client's application for adjustment of status.  Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client hired us after he had been placed in removal proceedings for obtaining his admission to the United States by fraud.  While in China, he was married and ultimately got a divorce.  Right after getting divorced, his mother filed an I-130 for him as the unmarried adult child of a lawful permanent resident.  Ten years later, he entered the United States.  However, he never disclosed on his applications that he had ever been married.  After coming to the United States, he attempted to file an I-130 for his former wife.  Our client was then placed into removal proceedings.  Through a prior attorney, our client denied that he was subject to removal.  We took over the case and decided that we would file a waiver under INA section 237(a)(1)(H) if the Judge determined that our client was subject to removal.  We were able to work with DHS before the date of the hearing on removability and decided that the best use of time and resources would be just to go straight to the waiver application rather than litigating removal.  On that date of the removability hearing, we informed the Judge we would proceed on a waiver.  After hearing the evidence, the Court granted the INA Section 237(a)(1)(H) waiver.  Therefore, our client is able to retain his lawful permanent resident status.  Scott Bratton handled the case.

K.H. is a native and citizen of India.  He was granted lawful permanent resident status in 1980.  In 1987 he was convicted for robbery and theft (our office did not represent him in this case).  The convictions were a result of a guilty plea to two counts of a four count Indictment.  He received a three to fifteen year sentence on Count One and a six month sentence on Count Four.  The Common Pleas Court suspended the sentence and imposed $50 in restitution and a $500 fine. As a result of his conviction he was later placed into removal proceedings.  DHS alleged that Respondent was subject to removal pursuant to INA Section 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) and INA Section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii).  The charges were sustained and he was ordered removed. After being ordered removed, he retained our office to help him reopen the case. We subsequently filed a motion to withdraw guilty pleas and vacate convictions.  The motion was granted by the Court of Common Pleas.  Our client subsequently entered guilty pleas to theft, as amended in Count One of the Indictment and possession of criminal tools, as amended in Count Four of the Indictment.  These were fifth degree felonies.  He did not receive a jail sentence.  Our office then moved to reopen and terminate his removal case because he was no longer subject to removal as charged.  The Board reopened the case and remanded the case to the Immigration Court. Our office filed a motion to terminate with the Immigration Court which was granted and his removal proceedings were terminated. He is no longer subject to removal and has his Green Card back.

Our client hired us after having a removal order for old convictions that were considered crimes involving moral turpitude and aggravated felonies.  We were able to vacate the convictions and after a great deal of time negotiating, work out a plea deal that we thought gave our client the best chance to avoid deportation.  We were able to get the removal case reopened and the case was remanded to the Immigration Judge to determine whether the new convictions could serve as the basis for removal.  DHS filed new removal charges and argued that even the new convictions for possession of criminal tools were for crimes involving moral turpitude.  We filed a brief arguing that under the BIA's analysis for crimes involving moral turpitude, our client was not convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.  After consideration of the evidence and briefs, the Immigration Judge agreed with our position and granted our motion to terminate proceedings.  Our client is now eligible for naturalization.  Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client hired us assess his options after he was granted voluntary departure when he withdrew his application for cancellation of removal.  He withdrew his cancellation of removal application only after being confronted with a US VISIT report showing he was in Mexico an additional time.  If the report was accurate, he would not have had the required presence for non-LPR cancellation of removal.  We reviewed the US VISIT report and noticed some things that cast serious doubt on its reliability.  We decided to pursue a motion to reopen and argue that the withdrawal of the cancellation of removal application was unknowing and involuntary as it was based on a report that was not accurate.  DHS opposed the motion.  After consideration of the motion and evidence, the Immigration Judge agreed the US VISIT report was unreliable and granted the motion to reopen.  Our client can now fully pursue his application for cancellation of removal.  Scott Bratton handled the motion to reopen.

A client came to see Mrs. Wong to file an I-589 for 10 yr. cancellation purposes.  During this process, in January of 2013, an I-765 (C10) for work authorization was filed, and in the same month the client received her receipt notice.  Then in March of 2013, the client received her approval notice and is able to work legally in the United States.  The client currently resides in Columbus, Ohio. 

Our client’s troubles all began when he was arrested while out picking up his mail. Damaged in a bad storm, his mail box refused to open and so our client decided to use a hammer to retrieve his morning paper. Unfortunately, his efforts attracted the attention of some police officers. Unable to present any identification or documentation to show who he was, the officers arrested him and very quickly discovered that he had no legal status in the United States. Our client had come to the United States ten years previously, over the Mexican border without being inspected, as a young boy of 9 years of age. From jail, our client reached out to Ms. Wong for her help and so the story started.That was in early June 2009. This client’s case demonstrated one of the major difficulties that attorneys face in helping the undocumented population in the United States – their lack of documentation to show who they are and where they came from. After being transferred around several detention facilities, Ms. Wong secured the release of her client within two weeks. Considering the client’s lack of status and documentation, this was no mean feat.Ms. Wong set the strategy for the client, but explained to him that it was going to be a very difficult case. As his girlfriend and future wife lived in the US and his baby son was a US citizen, our client had no desire to leave. Although he did not have any particularly bad memories of Mexico, it was many, many years since he had considered that country home. Two short visits there during his teenage years had convinced him that he had no future there. Understanding our client’s desire to stay in the US, Ms. Wong saw the only course as applying for what is referred to as 10 year cancellation of removal. To be eligible for this form of relief required presence in the United States for a minimum of ten years and a qualifying US relative for whom your removal would lead to exceptional and extreme hardship. A successful applicant is granted Legal Permanent Residence, better known as a green card.With a hearing set for May 2011 we needed to move quickly to file the EOIR-42B application for 10 year cancellation. We need to secure affidavits and proof of hardship – all of which takes significant time. With this filing we were also be able to secure work authorization for our client while he waited for a hearing before a judge. After initially being rescheduled for April 2011 – putting great pressure on our client to come up with the required documentation asked for by Ms. Wong – we received word in March that the hearing was now set for early 2013. During this long waiting period our office filed renewals to ensure that our client’s work authorization remained valid.When first meeting this client Ms. Wong made note that she felt there was something lucky about him. At the time she could not quite put her finger on what that was. With this client, Ms. Wong had warned him that although a good case she had seen stronger 10 year cancellation cases and that she could not guarantee a win. Much would depend on the judge. Here she hoped some change in the law or administration policy would help her client – he had no criminal record, was the father of US citizen, worked hard, was considered a good role model and neighbor by members of his community, and posed no threat to the country. Removing him from the country was not an effective use of the government’s limited resources and would certainly lead to great hardship for his family.In June 2012, President Obama announced his new Deferred Action for Child Arrivals (DACA) policy – granting relief to undocumented people who had come to the US as a child and had been here for more than five years. Immediately, Ms. Wong thought of this client and set a new strategy. We would file a request for DACA – this would grant him safety from removal and continued work authorization for a two year period and could be continually renewed – and request in light of this pending application that the Department of Homeland Security use its discretion and close the case. This part of the case required Ms. Wong’s personal touch, as her contacts within DHS and years of experience proved crucial. Our staff quickly compiled the DACA filing and the official request for prosecutorial discretion from DHS. Ms. Wong called the officer handling the case personally and was able to secure her agreement to support the administrative closure of the case against our client.A week before our client was due to go to court we received the order of the judge closing the case. Now, when his DACA is eventually approved (sometime in the next 5 months) he will know that he will be able to stay in the US with his family. Moreover, he will now be able to expand his horizons as he no longer falls into the category of undocumented – he has a social security card, an EAD (employment authorization card), and a driver’s license. From what started as a potentially very difficult case ended on a very happy note. Ms. Wong continues to hope that further changes in immigration policy will allow this young man to eventually become a citizen.

A citizen of China arrived by plane in the United States without legal documentation, and was subsequently detained by immigration authorities.  He was interviewed by an officer, who determined that he had a credible fear of persecution if he had to return to his home country.  He was issued an I-94 and paroled into the U.S. for removal proceedings.  He applied for asylum, but the Immigration Judge denied his application and issued a final order of removal.  His appeal was dismissed.  Despite the final order, he remained in the U.S. and started a family.  He married his wife, who is a U.S. citizen, and they had two children together.  They came to our office to see if we could help him obtain lawful status.  Our office helped him obtain permanent residency, and we were able to get his removal proceedings terminated so that he no longer has a final order of removal. 

I-601 Hardship Waiver Approved on Fourth Try
For fifteen years, our client's former attorney in Chicago tried unsuccessfully to get her a green card. Finally, the Board of Immigration Appeals denied her appeal and ordered her deported.  She had been charged with fraud when she tried to enter under false pretenses in 1996.  We re-filed our client's I-485 Application, re-filed an I-601 hardship waiver (our client's prior lawyer had failed three times to get one approved), and accompanied our client to her interview.  Less than eight months after we began our efforts, her waiver was approved and she received her green card in the mail.  What happiness for herself, her husband, and their two children.

1993 Exclusion Order Rescinded and Case Reopened
Our client has a wife and two U.S. citizen children.  He was arrested by immigration upon his arrival at JFK Airport in 1992.  He was put in exclusion proceedings.  He knew when he was supposed to go to court, but he failed to go.  The Immigration Judge ordered him excluded in absentia.  Our analysis of our client's immigration court records revealed a technical flaw in the court's proceedings.  We filed a Motion to Reopen and the judge terminated the exclusion order and reopened our client's case.  All done in less than three months.

Rescued From the Brink of Deportation
Our client has been fighting deportation for ten years.  Though his mother was granted withholding of removal due to persecution of Christians and ethnic Chinese in his home country of Indonesia, our client was denied this protection. His Chinese wife was denied asylum on her claims of persecution under China's one-child policy.  ICE twice delayed their deportation but was adamant that they leave the country this month, December 2012.  We documented the severity of our client's ill mother's condition and showed that she needed our client and his wife to care for her.  ICE granted the couple a stay of deportation within three days of our request.

A man from Korea was in immigration detention after being arrested for a misdemeanor traffic issue and his family called us for help to get him out.  We filed a motion to reopen in absentia.  We were able to convince the ICE officers to let the client out of immigration custody and have him report on an order of supervision. Soon after, we filed I-485 so that the client could get his green card. We asked the government to join in a motion to reopen the case and they agreed; soon we filed a motion to terminate proceedings and successfully ended the removal case against the client. We helped the client prepare for his green card interview and soon the client received his green card valid for ten years. 

Our client hired us after she had been called into the ICE Office due to a prior final order of removal.  She was unaware that she had been ordered removed along with her family many years ago.  After we took the case, she married a United States citizen.  While the I-130 was pending, we filed a sua sponte motion to reopen her case based on her eligibility to adjust upon approval of the I-130 since she had a lawful entry.  The motion was granted.  The I-130 petition was also later granted after a Stokes interview in New York.  We were then able to get her removal case terminated to allow her to adjust with USCIS.  We appeared with our client at the adjustment interview.  At that time, the officer stated that the number on the I-94 card our client presented showing that she entered as a visitor when she was a child actually belonged to someone else.  Our client did not have the passport that she entered on many years ago as a visitor as it had been lost by her parents.  We then were able to put together evidence to show that she entered the United States as a visitor on the date listed on the I-94. We submitted the evidence along with a detailed letter explaining what had happened and that she had to have been admitted as a visitor.  In September 2012 we received the excellent news that the case had been granted.  Our client is now a lawful permanent resident after living many years in the United States in limbo.  Scott Bratton handled the case.

Subsequently, Columbus CIS granted an interview on the I-751.  A little over a month after the interview, the I-751 was granted.  Our client's removal case was then terminated in July 2012.  Our client is now a lawful permanent resident as a result of the I-751 approval.  We were able to do this by reopening one removal case, terminating two removal cases and making a complex legal argument as to the validity of the 1st green card grant, which served as the predicate for the current I-751.  This case shows that you must be persistent in these cases and keep fighting.  What looked like an impossible case resulted in a victory for our client.  Scott Bratton handled this extremely complicated matter which took over two years to get resolved. 

The first thing we did is file a motion to reopen in Los Angeles to rescind the removal order in the first case.  We argued that our client did not get the Notice to Appear and was unaware that he was in removal proceedings or that he had a hearing.  The Judge in Los Angeles ultimately granted our motion.  The case was then transferred to Cleveland to combine the two removal cases.  We then were able to successfully get the first removal case terminated. 

With the first case eliminated, we could focus our efforts on the second case.  We did re-file the I-751 with additional evidence.  We also challenged DHS' claim that our client was ineligible to receive his green card in the first place because he was in removal proceedings.  We argued that removal proceedings never properly commenced because our client was not properly served with the Notice to Appear commencing proceedings.  Thus, he was not precluded from obtaining his green card at the time it was filed with USCIS.  Both parties filed detailed briefs.  The judge then issued a written decision agreeing with us that our client's initial green card grant was proper.  The only impediment remaining to our client remaining in the U.S. was the termination of his conditional resident status.  However, we were hoping to resolve this through the pending I-751.

Our client was placed in removal proceedings due to 2 felony convictions in Georgia.  These convictions were considered crimes involving moral turpitude.  We worked with a Georgia attorney and were successful in obtaining a pardon on his two criminal cases.  We then were able to terminate his removal proceedings.  We then worked with our client in filing an application for naturalization.  In July 2012, his naturalization application was granted.  Scott Bratton represented our client in this matter.

Our client hired us after he was picked up by ICE and placed in removal proceedings.  He also had an old removal order under a slightly different name.  However, ICE decided to place him in new removal proceedings.  His case was procedurally complicated and required us to work through this step by step to win the case.  Our client was entirely unaware of the old removal case.  He had hired a travel agency who helped him prepare an asylum application.  Our client was unaware that anything had happened with his asylum case.  However, what had happened was that he did not attend an interview and was placed in removal proceedings where he also did not appear.  This is because all the notices were sent to an address where our client never lived.  It was an address provided by the preparer of the application.  Our client was not aware this address was used and did not know of his removal case.  After the removal case was over (which he was not aware about), our client married a United States citizen.  He filed an application for adjustment of status with USCIS which was granted.  He was given conditional resident status.  That status was later terminated when an I-751 filed by a prior lawyer was denied.  It was only after that when he was detained by ICE and we were hired.

ICE alleged that our client was subject to removal because his permanent resident status was terminated when his I-751 was denied.  This is something we could attempt to cure by filing a new I-751 with more evidence of the bona fides of the marriage.  The more problematic charge was that DHS alleged that our client should not have been granted the green card in the first place because he had a removal order.  With a removal order, USCIS did not have jurisdiction over his application and therefore DHS argued it was improperly granted.  We knew that if DHS prevailed on this charge, our client would likely have no defense to removal.

Our client obtained permanent resident status though marriage to a United States citizen.  However, he was later placed in removal proceedings after the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") alleged that the marriage was fraudulent.  DHS' evidence included an investigative report and sworn statement of the ex-spouse that she was paid to marry our client.  After we were hired, we contested the charge of removal.  Numerous witnesses testified over the course of three hearings.  This includes the DHS officer who was involved in the investigation.  After consideration of the evidence, the Immigration Judge issued a detailed written decision.  The Judge concluded that DHS did not meet its burden of establishing marriage fraud.  Proceedings were terminated.  Our client is now eligible to apply for citizenship.  Scott Bratton handled the case.

An undocumented man married the woman he was in love with, only to find out that she was abusive and manipulative.  They had a daughter together, and the man's wife treated the child poorly.  The man's wife, a U.S. citizen, would also threaten him about his undocumented status.  The man tried to make it work because of his daughter, but eventually realized that his wife's behavior was detrimental not only to him, but also to his daughter, and he filed for divorce.  After the divorce, the man received sole custody of his daughter, because her mother was considered by the court to be an unfit parent, with drug and criminal issues.  Although he and his daughter were now safe, the man found himself in a terrible position- he was at constant risk of being deported while his daughter depended on him fully for financial and physical support and protection.  He came to us, with an ICE order of supervision on him, and asked us for help.  We filed a petition for review of the client's deportation order in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is still pending.  We also filed a Petition for a Battered Spouse of a U.S. Citizen.  Although the client was divorced from his U.S. citizen wife, he was still eligible to benefit from such a petition, because the maximum period of time had not expired since his divorce.  We worked diligently on his petition and were able to obtain a Prima Facie Determination of Eligibility, which made it possible for the client to obtain work authorization and work lawfully to support himself and his daughter.   After a full approval of his petition, the client will be eligible to adjust status to lawful permanent resident.  

A Chinese client came to us after finding out he had been sent a notice to appear (NTA) after his marriage-based I-485 was denied due to his previous marriage ending.  The client's NTA was sent to the wrong address, and he had not known he was in removal proceedings for a time.  The client had remarried and had a child; he did not want to leave his family.  We helped his wife file a Petition for Alien Relative, Form I-130, for him.  While the I-130 was pending, we filed a motion to reopen the client's case in the immigration court, because he was in removal proceedings.  The motion to reopen was on the basis that the client's NTA had not been properly served, since it was sent to the wrong address.  We successfully convinced the court to reopen the client's case because he was eligible to adjust to lawful permanent resident status upon approval of his I-130 and because he was eligible for cancellation of removal.  We were then able to file an Application to Adjust Status, Form I-485, on his behalf with the immigration court while his I-130 was pending with USCIS.  In the meantime, we were able to get the client work authorization so that he could support his family.  The I-130 was soon approved and we filed a joint motion to terminate removal proceedings on the client's behalf, with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.  The removal proceedings were terminated and the  client's I-485 was approved soon after without an interview.   The client received his green card within weeks and now lives happily with his wife and child in the United States. 

In August 2009, we were retained by a Russian citizen to represent him in his removal proceedings.  He had a hearing scheduled in a few weeks, thus, we quickly filed a Motion for Continuance to develop our strategy and evidence in his case.  We then filed supplemental documents in support of his I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding and Removal.  An Individual hearing was scheduled for October 2010.  In November 2009, we learned that Court committed a clerical error and that the client had a previous order of removal in absentia.  We immediately filed a Motion to Reopen his previous case and a Motion to Stay Deportation, which were both granted.  A new individual hearing was set for May 2010.  In the meantime, the client married a United States citizen.  They filed their on I-130 Petition and we helped the client prepare an exemption letter, which allowed for a spousal petition while the spouse was in removal proceedings.  In May 2010, we filed a Motion for Continuance based on the pending I-130 Petition. The Motion was granted and a new Master Calendar hearing was set for May 2011. By the next hearing, the I-130 petition was approved, which made our client eligible to adjust status.  We filed the I-485 Application to Adjust Status one month later.  At his next hearing, we withdrew our client's I-589.  Proceedings were terminated and the I-485 was transferred to USCIS so our client could pursue adjustment.  In December 2011, USCIS denied the client's I-485 in error, citing that he was in removal proceedings.  We filed a Motion to Reconsider in January 2012, showing that his removal proceedings had indeed been terminated.  In May 2012, we received the client's I-485 interview notice. His I-485 interview took place in June 2012.  Last than one week letter, we received his official Welcome Notice as a Lawful Permanent Resident of the United States.  Attorney Scott Bratton and paralegal Fabiola Cini handled the case. 

A native and citizen of China had been residing in the United States since 1996.  He received a removal order after his application for asylum and withholding of removal was denied in 2001.  His employer, a Japanese restaurant, retained Margaret W. Wong & Assoc. Co., LPA in 2007 to assist in filing an I-140 on behalf of the Chinese native.  The I-140 petition was based on a labor certification application that was accepted for processing in 2003.  The I-140 petition was approved a few months later.  After reviewing the employee's entire file in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, we discovered a copy of the labor certification application filed by the employer that revealed a partial date stamp indicating that the application was received in 2001, thus making the employee eligible to adjust his status.  Once the employee's priority date became current, we requested that DHS join in a motion to reopen the employee's immigration case.  DHS has agreed to join and this employee will soon have his case reopened and be able to apply to adjust his status and obtain lawful permanent residency.    

We successfully got a client's removal proceedings administratively closed (temporarily closed)  based on our client being an arriving alien with an I-485, application for adjustment of status pending with USCIS.  We knew that because our client was paroled into the U.S., he is an arriving alien and can file for adjustment of status with USCIS even if he is still in removal proceedings in front of an immigration judge.  Our strategy was to file the I-485 with USCIS and then administratively close his removal proceedings. This strategy worked.  Client's I-485 is pending, meanwhile, we got him a work permit.  Now client is waiting for his adjustment of status interview with USCIS.  Once approved, we will be able to terminate his removal proceedings permanently so he will not have to go in front of the immigration judge anymore. 

After successfully getting the Immigration Court to reopen proceedings sua sponte, we obtained the government attorney's consent to terminate our client's removal proceedings so that he could pursue his adjustment of status application with USCIS.  Just 2 months after we got his removal proceedings terminated, our client received his I-485 interview notice.  Although our client lives in Massachusetts, we were able to thoroughly prepare him for his interview.  He had a successful I-485 interview and his adjustment of status application has been recommended for approval.  Our client will not be able to petition for his son who lives abroad, so that he can come to the U.S. on a green card.

Our client hired us after she had a final order of removal for failing to attend her hearing.  At the time she hired us, she was married to a United States citizen.  She had spoken to many other attorneys who told her that she would not be able to get her case reopened.  After being hired, we put together an extensive motion to reopen.  After considering the motion, the Immigration Court reopened the case.  Subsequent to reopening, we were able to successfully terminate removal proceedings.  In May 2012, our client was granted adjustment of status by USCIS.  The long journey that started over 10 years ago when our client came to the United States and was ordered deported is now over.  Scott Bratton handled the case. 

Our client came to us after his case had been remanded from the BIA. He was a refugee who was convicted of robbery and served a three year prison sentence. The Immigration Judge previously had granted withholding of removal but denied asylum and adjustment of status. The BIA vacated the judge's decision on withholding of removal and remanded the case to allow the parties to introduce any additional evidence they wanted on all forms of relief. On remand, we focused on the refugee adjustment application. Our client needed a waiver because of the robbery conviction. After a hearing on the issues, the Immigration Judge granted our client adjustment of status. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client hired us in 2003. At the time, he was not married. He entered the United States without inspection in 2002 after previously being refused entry and sent back to his country. It was alleged that he attempted to enter with a fake passport the first time. Our client applied for asylum after his second entry. After his case was transferred to Detroit, he married a lawful permanent resident. We were able to get the case administratively closed to allow his wife the time to naturalize. His wife ultimately did naturalize. We then applied for adjustment of status. We argued that although he was not present in December 2000, he was grandfathered under section 245(i) based on a labor certification filed on behalf of his father who was present in December 2000. His final hearing was in March 2012. At the hearing, we argued and presented evidence that our client did not need a waiver for fraud due to his first entry because he did not actually present the fake passport to immigration officials. We also presented testimony to establish that he met the hardship standard necessary for a waiver. In May 2012, the Immigration Judge granted our client adjustment of status. Scott Bratton handled the case.

A Chinese national was placed into deportation proceedings by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). He was scared and overwhelmed. He had lost hope and thought he would never be able to return to the United States and see his family. So he contacted Margaret W. Wong & Associates to help him with his predicament. The attorneys and staff members at the firm took the case and fought hard for their client. Through countless hearings and motions, the firm challenged DHS every step of the way to make sure their client was defended. Finally through the firms hard work and preparation, the Immigration Judge terminated his deportation proceedings and he was free again. The Chinese national was so happy and so were the attorneys and staff members at the firm. They helped a client who had thought he had lost all hope and showed him that there is always a light at the end of the tunnel.

We were recently successful in getting a Stay of Deportation or Removal for one of our clients. A native of Trinidad and Tobago, she came to the U.S. to compete as a Track and Field Athlete. She had a bright future ahead of her and her Uncle/Coach convinced her to stay in the U.S. He told her he would be able to get her a green card. Without her knowledge, he arranged for her to marry a U.S. and filed the necessary paperwork for that USC to petition for her, all the while keeping this information from our client. She was told she had an Interview and was then introduced to a man, her supposed husband. At the interview, the Officer found the marriage to be fraudulent, which permanently barred our client from ever being able to obtain legal status in the U.S. Meanwhile, our client went on to run track in college where she met her husband. They have two young boys and have made a wonderful life for each other. He filed an I-130 Petition for his wife, which was denied because of her "previous marriage". The appeal we filed is currently pending. Our client must report on an Order of Supervision. ICE moved up the report date and hinted that she might be detained and removed from the country. Our office filed a Request for Deferred Action and an Application for Stay of Deportation. The Stay was granted for one year, and we hope to keep fighting for our client so she may permanently stay in the U.S. with her family. Attorney Weronika K. Costas handled the Deferred Action and Stay of Deportation for our client.

A Native of Hong Kong had entered the United States legally through a valid visa. He wanted to become a Lawful Permanent Residence of this country but there was a problem. He had overstayed his Visa. This meant he was currently in the United States unlawfully. The Hong Kong Native contacted Margaret W. Wong & Associates for help from what he saw as a dire and troubling situation. The attorneys and staff members of the firm went hard at work to help their client. They filed for a 10 Year Cancellation of Removal and advocated for his stay in front of an Immigration Judge. Through proper preparation and hard work, the advocates at Margaret W. Wong & Associates had their efforts rewarded. The Immigration Judge granted the 10 Year Cancellation of Removal and the individual received his Green Card. The Native of Hong Kong was filled with happiness and relief. He joined a number of other clients who had felt the same after contacting Margaret W. Wong & Associates.

We were retained in December 2011 by a family from Guatemala. The father was a previous client who got his green card through our firm. His wife and 4 oldest children who were living in Guatemala, were forced to flee their country after the oldest son was threatened by a gang, who also wanted to extort a large amount of money from the college student. The family was caught after crossing the border and placed in ICE custody. His mom and younger siblings had been detained and released on an Order of Supervision but because he was over 18, he was not released with his family. We immediately filed a Motion for Bond but found out he was put in expedited removal, the Court had no jurisdiction and deportation was imminent. We were able to stop his deportation by requesting for a Credible Fear Interview, which was filed in early January 2011. In mid February, our client had his credible fear interview with an asylum officer. Attorney Weronika K. Costas prepped the client and appeared telephonically on behalf of the client. Our client passed his interview and his case was finally transferred to the court. His first hearing was in Mid March. We filed a motion for bond, which was granted at his Custody Determination Hearing one week later. His family was able to pay the bond in Ohio and the client was released the next morning. Our client and his family are ecstatic that they are finally reunited after 3 long months. We are now in the process of getting the family's case transferred to the Cleveland Immigration Court and are a pursuing their asylum claim. Attorney Weronika K. Costas and paralegal Melissa Logan are handling this case.

In May 2010, we were retained by a Chinese woman who wanted to obtain her green card. She entered the U.S. in 1995 without inspection. She married a US citizen, who filed an I-130 petition for her in 2001 but they later divorced. This petition, although never approved, made her eligible to adjust status under 245(i). Her ex-husband withdrew his petition and sent USCIS a letter claiming they only married for immigration purposes. She remarried in 2005 to a U.S.C., whose I-130 for our client had already been approved. However, the client's 2006 I-485 application had been denied because USCIS did not think she was eligible to adjust under 245(i). Two weeks after signing the contract, we refiled the I-485 application under 245(i). Around the same time, our client was coincidentally given a Notice to Appear in Immigration Court. Although our client was worried, we assured her that this was no problem because she could pursue adjustment of status in court. In August 2010, her I-485 application was denied because jurisdiction now lied with the Immigration Court. In October 2010, at her 2nd Master Calendar hearing, we filed an EOIR-42B Cancellation of Removal application and renewed her I-485 application. Our client was given an Individual Hearing in November 2011. At the hearing our client was represented by Attorney William Low. After testimony of our client and her witnesses, the Judge and government attorney agreed that the first marriage was not a fraudulent one and that our client was eligible to adjust under 245(i). Another individual hearing was sent in January 2012 so that the client could update her medical examination as well as her petitioner's I-864 Affidavit of Support. Those documents were filed in December 2011. At the January 2012 hearing, the Immigration Judge granted our client Adjustment of Status under 245(i). In March 2012, we received the official I-485 Approval Notice and our client received her green card. Our client is extremely happy and thankful for the hard work of her many caseworkers.

Young Honduran Mother Saved From Deportation: In January 2012, a 27-year old Honduran woman's boyfriend came to us frantic that she had been arrested by ICE and was being held without bond. We learned that she had a final removal order from 2006, and ICE was planning to deport her within the week. We immediately froze the deportation by filing a Motion to Reopen with the San Antonio Immigration Court. ICE agreed that they could not deport her while the motion was pending before the Court, but they refused to release her from detention. We showed ICE that she was the sole breadwinner for her own two children and her boyfriend's two children ever since her boyfriend became disabled last summer. Even when we showed ICE that the family's electricity and water were going to be cut off, ICE refused to release her. We enlisted the support of the family's elected officials and more senior ICE officials in Washington. She was released from detention a week later. She visited us today with her beautiful, beaming children. We are now working on keeping her here permanently.

Chinese Woman's Deportation Delayed While Her Daughter Finished High School: In late January 2012, a college-educated Chinese woman living in Guam hired us to help her avoid deportation. Local ICE officials secured her passport and travel papers and told her she must leave on February 28, 2012. As the single mother and only U.S. relative of a fifteen year old U.S. citizen daughter, she was frantic that her daughter's education would be ruined. Her daughter was fully immersed in U.S. culture and did not know how to read or write Chinese. We filed an Application to Stay Removal with the Guam ICE office. It took the office only 24 hours to deny the application. The officers refused to exercise prosecutorial discretion and refused to acknowledge that they had such discretion. Unfortunately, the woman had a final order of removal from 1995. Her Immigration Judge had found her very honest, very credible, and very intelligent, but he concluded that she did not suffer past persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution following her participation in student protests in China in 1989. Notwithstanding her final removal order, we argued with ICE that to deport the mother would be to deport her 15-year old citizen daughter and cause her extreme hardship. We documented the girl's academic achievement and immersion in U.S. culture, and we documented her mother's honesty, good character and absence of threat to the public. We formally requested prosecutorial discretion from the Guam ICE office and alerted ICE leadership in Washington, D.C. and California that the Guam office refused to consider our request. Four days before her scheduled deportation, we reached an arrangement with ICE by which we would file a Motion to Reopen with the Board of Immigration Appeals and ICE would cancel deportation. At a minimum, Respondent will be able to delay her deportation for three years while her daughter finished high school. Our goal though is to secure her mother a green card well before that time.

Polish Truck Driver Saved from Deportation AND Gets His Case Reopened: A boy in Poland in the 1970's dreamed of driving large tractor trailers across the wide open horizons of the United States. In 1990, he came to the United States on a visitor's visa and never left. By 1996 he had married and started his own one-man trucking company. He and his wife (also without papers) had three children, bought a home, and settled into a comfortable working class life in the Midwest. Our client was stopped by Border Patrol Agents in 1999 while driving his truck through Texas. ICE served him papers and released him. The El Paso Immigration Court later ordered him removed when he did not appear for his hearing. On October 31, 2011, ICE arrested our client and began deportation proceedings. His wife came to us and explained that her husband's trucking business was the family's only source of financial support. She was desperate to get him released and keep him in the United States. The family could not survive without him. If deported, the couple could never raise their three children (ages 9, 13, and 14) in Ukraine (her home country) or Poland (his). We froze his deportation by filing a Motion to Reopen with the El Paso Immigration Court. We filed a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request to get a copy of his Court documents, and we successfully asked the El Paso Court to hold off making a decision on his case until we re-filed a Motion to Reopen based on those FOIA documents. Meanwhile, ICE refused to release him while the Court was making its decision. The family suffered through Christmas without their father, and in January 2012 we formally requested that our client be released, setting forth the hardship to his family, his scrupulous honesty paying taxes, insuring his truck, maintaining proper insurance, and being an active member in his Catholic parish. Still ICE refused to release him. Upon receipt of his Court documents, we filed a new Motion to Reopen his case, arguing that the Court had not provided him proper notice of his hearing. On February 26, 2012, the El Paso Court agreed with us and reopened his case. ICE was forced to release him on a bond. Our client's family is overjoyed to have him home. Our client is overjoyed to be home and able to begin supporting his family again. He is again living his boyhood dreaming of driving a great big truck across the broad plains of the United States.

Egyptian Man Finally Has A Clear Path to Citizenship: One of our favorite clients is an Egyptian man who lives in New Jersey. He came to the United States in 1999 on a visitor's visa and never left. He worked hard on the streets of New York City operating food carts and working in restaurants. He married a U.S. citizen, and she filed a Petition for him, but the marriage did not last. When the petition was denied, ICE put him in removal proceedings. His attorney helped him file for asylum, but the New York Immigration Court ordered him removed. The Court granted him Withholding of Removal. This means that though ICE will not deport him immediately, he can never get a green card, never become a citizen, and never travel outside the United States. ICE can deport him later, if they ever decide that he could return safely to Egypt. When his mother died, he could not go home to honor her. Our client married a U.S. citizen in 2006, and she filed a petition for him. They have a wonderful relationship, and the Immigration Service approved her petition. Nevertheless, our client's final removal order from the Immigration Judge prevented him from getting a green card. Twice we formally asked ICE to join with us to reopen his case. We noted our client's dedication to his disabled father-in-law, his history of assistance to the NYPD, his honesty, and the problems he has had to face in his life. ICE denied our request in October 2011. We renewed the request in November and refused to allow ICE to put our request on the shelf. After eight weeks of phone calls, emails, and letters, we convinced ICE to join with us to reopen his case. Our Egyptian client should have his green card before summer. Meanwhile, he has completed his application for the NYPD and is positioned to start again his career with "New York's Finest."

Our client hired us after he was placed in removal proceedings due to an arrest for transporting illegal aliens. He previously had been married to a United States citizen of his I-130 was denied. He ultimately hired us to handle his removal case. He married a second United States citizen. However, due to the fact he entered without inspection, we had to show he was grandfathered under INA Section 245(i) by arguing his first I-130 was approvable when filed despite being denied. We obtain a great deal of evidence to establish our client's eligibility for adjustment of status. He had a very lengthy hearing before the Immigration Court on his adjustment of status application. After the hearing, the Immigration Judge granted adjustment of status. Our client was able to obtain his green card after having been in deportation proceedings for over 10 years. Scott Bratton handled the case.

An Algerian National and his wife a US citizen retained our firm in December 2007. Wife contacted our office and asked Attorney Margaret Wong for help to get her husband released from ICE custody. Attorney Scott Bratton visited our client in jail and talked to the ICE officer trying to get our client release but the petition was denied. On March 2008, Attorney Francis Fungsang filed habeas corpus and after filed BIA brief our client was finally released from ICE custody in July 2008. Attorneys and paralegals from our firm worked hard in this case to get client out of ICE custody. Our attorneys Bratton and Fungsang were still fighting with our client on the deportation order. Our client had applied for asylum with a previous attorney in previous years, and then withdrew his case. ICE wanted to send the client back to his Country and our attorneys knew that this was a very tough case. Attorney Bratton prepared and argued our client's case at 6th Circuit until he finally won the case in March 2010. Our office prepared application to adjust to permanent resident status and application for waiver of grounds of inadmissibility but we faced another issue, a previous client's criminal case that was opened years ago. On October 2011, our attorney Scott Bratton and legal assistant Fabiola Cini submitted both applications to USCIS after criminal attorney informed us that the client's previous criminal case was dismissed. Our client and his wife were appointed for an interview notice on January 2012. Attorney Francis Fungsang went with clients to the interview, USCIS officer reviewed the case and requested more evidences. Attorney Fungsang then submitted requested evidences and on February 2012 our client's permanent green card was approved. Husband and wife were very grateful and wanted to thank Attorneys Margaret Wong, Scott Bratton, Francis Fungsang also legal assistants Fabiola Cini and Alex Strmac for all their help in getting their I-485 case approved with USCIS.

In March 2009, our office was retained by a man from El Salvador who had been given an NTA. At his first MC hearing we filed for a continuance in order to file an I-130 family petition based on his marriage to a US citizen. The petition was filed less than one month later on April 16, 2009. We filed several motion for continuances in order to allow time for the I-130 to be approved. The 130 interview was schedule for February 2010. At the interview, attended by one of our attorneys, we were asked to provide more documents proving the marriage was bona fide. We filed the RFE response within 3 weeks. By May 2010, we still hadn't received word from USCIS regarding the I-130 and thus, sent several status inquiries to find out what was going on with their case and continued to file Motion for Continuances with Immigration Court. In late January 2011, we filed one last Motion for Continuance and were given a hearing date in June. In early February, we finally received word that the I-130 was approved. On June 22, we filed an I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence in court. The next day we filed a Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings, which was approved within a week. Our client no longer faced any threat of deportation! His green card interview was scheduled for December 2011, which was attended by attorney Francis Fungsang. Our client received his green card within a month! He was extremely thankful for our firm's hard work and looks forward to work with us in order to file petition for his daughters. This case was successful thanks to the hard work of Attorney Francis Fungsang and caseworkers Alex Strmac and Fabiola Cini.

Our client appeared pro se at his removal hearing. The judge asked if he feared going back to his country and he stated that he did. The judge then asked why, cut him off during his explanation and concluded that he did not have a basis for asylum. The judge ordered removal. We were the hired on the case to handle the appeal. We argued on appeal that the judge violated our client's due process rights and that he should have been permitted to file for asylum in light of his stated fear of returning to his country. After briefing the issue, the Board of Immigration Appeals granted the appeal and remanded the case to allow our client to apply for asylum. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client hired us after he had been ordered removed for failing to appear at his hearing. His removal order was 10 years old. We received a Freedom of Information Act Request and upon review determined the government failed to present any proof of alienage. We argued that it was improper to enter a removal order where there was no proof of alienage presented by the government even where our client did not appear. Thus, the government failed to establish that our client was subject to removal. The immigration judge agreed and reopened the case. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client hired us after she was placed in removal proceedings. She had been in the United States for a long period of time and did not have any status. We filed an I-589 in Immigration Court on her behalf. After two hearings on her I-589, the Immigration Judge granted withholding of removal to our client. DHS appealed the Judge's decision. We filed a response in opposition to the appeal. In January 2012, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed DHS' appeal. Scott Bratton handled the hearings as well as the appeal.

Our client hired us after being placed in removal proceedings. He later married a United States citizen. His wife filed an I-130 petition on his behalf. However, the I-130 was denied for several reasons. Our office filed an appeal to the BIA setting forth the reasons why USCIS' decision was erroneous. Fortunately, the Board agreed, vacated the decision of USCIS and remanded the case for another interview. Our office represented at the interview in January 2012. His case was approved one day after the interview. Our client can now apply for adjustment of status. Scott Bratton handled the BIA appeal and second I-130 interview.

Our office was retained on February 14, 2011 by the family of a Chinese national who had been detained by ICE in January. Although the original contract was only to get him out of jail, we soon learned that this client had an extremely good case and we would be able to get him a green card. This client arrived in the United States in 1994 and was paroled as an arriving alien. He was in exclusion proceedings in front of an Immigration Judge in New York and he was given a final order of deportation. He appealed to the BIA, which was denied in 1995. Since then, he began dating a United States citizen and had a two year old child. We learned that the couple planned to get married and we urged them to do so as soon as possible. Our firm obtained permission for them to get married in jail, which occurred on February 24. A few weeks later we filed an I-130 Petition for an Alien Relative on behalf of our client's wife as well as an I-485 Application to Register Permanent Resident or Adjust Status. In late March, we received a Request for Evidence (RFE), as the medical examination was not included in the filing because the client was in jail. We found a civil surgeon who was willing to go to the jail in order to perform the medical exam. The RFE response was filed on April 29. On May 10, we filed a 90 Day Review, in attempts to get him out of custody. Unfortunately, this was denied and we were told he would not be eligible to be released from detention for another 90 days. However, due to our diligent work we were able to get the client released on an Order of Supervision on July 12, before the 180 Day Review. A week after our client's relief, we applied for an I-765 Application for Work Authorization. During this time, were also successful in helping our client obtain a driver's license with his I-485 Receipt Notice. His work permission was approved on August 25 and he was scheduled for his I-485 interview on September 23. Partner and Head of Litigation, Scott Bratton, attended the interview. After a short three months, we received notice that our client's green card application was approved on December 23, 2011. He is a conditional resident, as his green card is based on a marriage to a USC, and is eligible to become a Lawful Permanent Resident in August 2013. . We are now in the process of terminating his removal proceedings as he has already adjusted status to a Conditional Permanent Resident. Our client was extremely happy that we were able to get him out of jail and get him a green card in less than 9 months.

Our client hired us to assist him with his deportation case. He had not filed for asylum within one year of coming to the United States. Our client told us that he had been persecuted in the past and feared that he would be persecuted in the future. We filed an I-589. The case was set for a hearing before an Immigration Judge in Cleveland, Ohio. In December 2011, the Immigration Judge granted withholding of removal based on the past persecution he suffered and his fear of future persecution. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Mr. F is Being Released from Michigan Jail. He is an illegal alien from China with Final Order and was arrested and jailed because he was riding in a car with his USC lady relative that lost her sense of direction and went into U.S. Customs Zone in near the border between Canada and the State of Michigan early this Summer. We have been working on his case "Release from Custody", first his 90-Day Review was denied due to lack of a well qualified sponsor and other pertinent equities. However, after having pushed Mr. F's USC younger sister to provide us copy of Mr. F's I-130 Receipt and Approval Notices, which she had misplaced them, but ultimately she was able to find the letter from the NVC regarding her petition of her older brother Mr. F. Upon his release from jail, we will be able to work on a new case of Mr. F.

Our client came to us in order to help him fight deportation. He came to the United States in 1991 and has not left. His parents were able to get lawful permanent resident status but due to his former attorney's errors, he was unable to obtain any status. We applied for cancellation of removal based on hardship to his parents if he is deported. We submitted proof of financial and emotional/psychological hardship. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Immigration Judge granted cancellation of removal. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client came to us after he had a final order of removal. Based on a prior attorney's concession, the Immigration Judge concluded that he had made a false claim to citizenship when he attempted to enter the United States. Our client is now married to a United States citizen but based on the false claim to citizenship finding, he was not eligible to adjust status as this is a permanent bar. We filed a motion to reopen with the BIA alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for conceding to a false claim of citizenship. We submitted evidence to show that although our client did possess a fake United States passport at one point in his journey to the U.S., he did not present it to a U.S. immigration official. The Board reopened the case and remanded the case to the Immigration Judge for further factfinding. After considering the evidence on remand, the Judge sided with our client and concluded that there had not been a false claim of U.S. citizenship. Since our client is an arriving alien, he can now file his green card application with USCIS. Scott Bratton handled the case

Our client came to us to help him apply for cancellation of removal. He has been in the United States over ten years and has two United States citizen children. He is from Hong Kong. We compiled a large amount of evidence to show the hardship to the children if our client could not remain in the United States. The case proceeded at the Immigration Court in Atlanta, Georgia. At the hearing, the Immigration Judge granted our client cancellation of removal. Our client can now remain with his children in the United States as a lawful permanent resident. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client hired us after he realized he had a removal order for failing to attend his hearing. The Notice to Appear ("NTA") and hearing notices were sent to an old address. We filed a motion to reopen with proof that the address on the NTA and hearing notice was incorrect and argued that proceedings must be reopened. DHS opposed the motion. In September 2011, the Immigration Judge agreed with our argument in a very thorough written decision and proceedings were reopened. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our Mexican client entered the U.S. without inspection and was ordered deported. She was initially banned from entering the U.S. for lying about being a USC. She sought our services, and we set about tackling her specific case. Because our client was married to a USC for 2 years, and the couple has a 6 year old USC child, we first believed we could file for her permanent residency through her spouse. However, after we learned that her spouse could not sponsor her for financial reasons, we had to find a different course of action. Their 6 year old was diagnosed with a bleeding disorder, and after giving birth, their second child was diagnosed with a heart defect. In order to prevent our client from being taken into ICE custody and being separated from her children, we opted to petition for Deferred Action, in light of our client's need to stay with her children during their time of need. We were successful in obtaining Deferred Action for our client, and thus prevented her from being deported.

Our client came to our office after being taken into ICE custody when he was found to be subject to expedited removal as a result of his convictions for 16 aggravated felonies.  He is a Coptic Christian from Egypt.  Due to the expedited removal proceedings initiated due to the criminal record, our client was not eligible for regular removal proceedings and could only apply for withholding of removal and CAT relief if found to have a reasonable fear of persecution.  We requested a reasonable fear hearing, which was held in early 2011.  Our client was found to have a reasonable fear of persecution/torture so the case was scheduled for a hearing before the Immigration Judge.  Due to his convictions, our client was only eligible for relief under the Convention Against Torture.  This requires showing that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured In Egypt by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.  We submitted evidence regarding our client’s prior problems in Egypt and the current problems faced by Coptic Christians in Egypt.  After considering the evidence, the Immigration Judge granted our client’s application for relief under the Convention Against Torture in May 2011.  Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our firm was successful in helping a client who was detained by Immigrations in Customs Enforcement in 2005.  He was under a final order of deportation when he was apprehended by ICE.  Our client was also the beneficiary of an approved I-130 immigrant visa petition filed by his USC wife before April 30, 2001.  He was eligible to adjust except that our team had to get his case reopened.  Our team filed a joint motion to reopen with the New York Department of Homeland Security.  This was ultimately approved.  The case was set before an Immigration Judge and Attorney Jason Lorenzon prepared the client, his wife, and his entire family for the long hearing.  Several hours of testimony and litigation occurred.  Finally, the Immigration Judge stated that he was going to grant the case, but the Government said because our client was not cooperative while in ICE custody, he could not adjust because of the “fugitive disentitlement doctrine.”  Attorney Lorenzon argued that this was inapplicable since our client was in ICE custody.  The Immigration Judge set a briefing schedule in which the government never replied and ultimately agreed to a grant.  Attorney Lorenzon would regularly visit our client at his business and help them get the final documents for the affidavit of support and necessary medical.  Attorney Lorenzon submitted all the necessary evidence to ultimately secure a grant for our client.  On April 4, 2011, the Immigration Judge granted our client permanent resident status.  This is a true success story when a Chinese national goes from being subject to a final order of deportation to being a lawful permanent resident.  He has a wonderful family who are all United States Citizens and a successful restaurant promoting economic growth!   

Our client was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement for being in the United States without authorization.  However, she married a US citizen.  Our firm pursued an I-130 petition which was ultimately approved after an extensive interview.  The case was set for a final hearing on her adjustment of status application with an Immigration Judge.  After a lengthy hearing, the Immigration Judge granted adjustment of status in February 2011.  Scott Bratton handled the case.

When our client retained us, he had a final order of removal and was scheduled to report for deportation.  He failed to appear at his removal hearing.  In looking into his case, we discovered that he was defrauded by an immigration agency who filed an application for adjustment of status on his behalf using an address where he did not live.  We prepared a motion to reopen his case arguing that he did not receive proper notice of the commencement of removal proceedings.  In January 2011, the case was reopened and a new hearing date was set.  Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client came to our office after he had a final removal order.  He was the victim of some bad legal advice during his case.  He received voluntary departure but did not depart the United States.  He ultimately married his current wife, who is a United States citizen, and she filed an I-130 on his behalf that is pending.  We filed a motion to reopen on his behalf alleging that he would be eligible to adjust status once the I-130 is approved.  DHS opposed the motion solely because it was their position that our client was ineligible to adjust status due to overstaying his voluntary departure.  However, we countered by arguing that our client could not be subject to the penalties for overstaying voluntary departure because the IJ had no authority to grant post-hearing voluntary departure in the first place.  Our client had not been in the US more than one year prior to the issuance of the Notice to Appear, rendering him ineligible for voluntary departure.  Nobody caught this at the prior hearing.  However, we discovered the ineligibility and argued that our client was not barred from adjusting status for overstaying voluntary departure.  Ultimately the BIA agreed and our client’s case was reopened.  Scott Bratton and Danja Therecka handled the case.

In January 2011, Scott Bratton attended a successful Stokes I-130 interview in New York.  A Stokes interview is conducted when the beneficiary of the I-130 is in removal proceedings.  The husband and wife are separated and asked questions to assess the validity of the marriage.  The interviews generally last from one to two hours.  Our client’s approved I-130 means that she is eligible to adjust status with the Immigration Court.

Years ago our client contacted us when he was charged with a criminal offense.  He hired us to work with his criminal attorney to obtain a plea deal that would not result in deportation (he was an LPR) and would allow him to naturalize.  We advised his criminal attorney and he entered a plea to a lesser charge that we recommended.  We later applied for naturalization.  Scott Bratton attended the interview in Indianapolis, Indiana.  At the end of 2010, we received word that our client’s application for naturalization had been approved.  He is now a United States citizen.  This case shows the importance of working with experienced immigration counsel when charged with a criminal offense.  Scott Bratton handled the case.
Our client hired us after being placed in removal proceedings.  Our client was in immigration custody.  He had been convicted in Ohio of felony vandalism and received a four-year sentence.  DHS alleged that this was an aggravated felony rendering him subject to removal.  We immediately filed a motion for bond and a motion to terminate removal proceedings.  DHS filed an opposition.  After considering the briefs, the Immigration Judge agreed with our position that the vandalism offense was not an aggravated felony.  Therefore, she terminated removal proceedings.  Since DHS intended to appeal, she also granted bond.  Our client has been released.  Scott Bratton prepared the termination motion and Jason Lorenzon handled the bond hearing.

Mr. YY, a Chinese citizen came to USA over ten years ago. He was ordered deported over several years ago. He hired our office in 2008 when he got married to a US Citizen.  An I-130 Petition for Alien Relative was immediately filed and once approved our office filed a request with the Department of Homeland Security asking this department to join in a motion to reopen. This request was declined. Then our office immediately filed a Motion to Reopen with BIA supporting this motion with sufficient evidence. The Board reopened the case Sua Sponte and remanded the case to Immigration Court where our client filed his adjustment of status. This case was approved and Mr. YY is now a Legal Permanent Resident.

Our client’s case was denied by an Immigration Judge.  He hired us to file an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals.  While his appeal was pending, the priority date for the approved visa petition filed by his brother was approved.  We immediately filed a motion to remand along with a copy of the adjustment of status application.  The Board of Immigration Appeals remanded the case to allow our client to pursue his green card application with the Immigration Judge.  Scott Bratton filed the Motion to Remand.

Our client hired us after he was detained for missing his removal hearing.  He had a final order of removal.  Our office filed a motion to reopen the case based on lack of proper notice of the commencement of removal proceedings.  The motion to reopen was granted.  Our client claimed that he was persecuted in the past on account of practicing Falun Gong in China.  We presented his claim to the Court over the course of two long hearings.  In November 2010, the Immigration Judge granted withholding of removal.  Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client missed his hearing and was ordered removed in his absence.  We were then hired to file a motion to reopen.  We based the motion on our client’s contention that he did not receive notice of his removal hearing.  Although the Court had sent a copy of the hearing notice to the correct address, we presented evidence to show that the notice of hearing had been received by our client.  We had to rebut the presumption that he received notice.  Upon considering our motion, the Immigration Judge granted the motion to reopen.  This will allow our client to pursue his adjustment of status application.  Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our firm, especially Attorney Jason Lorenzon is celebrating with this client.  Our client, an Indian National was placed into deportation proceedings after his 601 waiver application was denied.  Our client is married to a United States Citizen.   Our client hired an attorney who told him that he could not stay in the United States after he filed an immigrant visa petition for our client and an adjustment of status application.  Our client entered the United States back in 2001 under a fake name and fake passport.  Someone in India arranged it for him so he could remain with his mother, and father and siblings in the United States.  His parents and siblings were all here in the United States as lawful permanent residents.  He was the only due to his age who could not get a green card.  His friends in India told him he could never get a visa to come to the United States so a travel agent in India procured the documents for him under a fake name. When he came to the United States, he was admitted and eventually found his wife and got married.  He also has children.  His entire family is here, his wife’s entire family is here.  He has no family in India.  His parents are also United States citizens.  His second attorney filed an new I-130 visa petition, an adjustment of status application and a 601 waiver application.  The application was eventually denied for lack of proof.  He was then placed into deportation proceedings. Our client retained our firm and Attorney Lorenzon went to work.  Mr. Lorenzon assessed that our client’s presence was tantamount to his family’s existence in the United States.  He took care of his wife, his parents and his siblings.  He was the sole income provider.  He helped his Uncle run his businesses which are multi-million dollar entities.  His family does everything together.  They live together, they exist together, they go to temple together, the do absolutely everything together.  An expert prepared an appropriate report outlining the hardship.  Mr. Lorenzon prepared twelve different witnesses who were prepared to testify about the hardship his family would experience if he was not allowed to stay.  Mr. Lorenzon pre-tried the case with the Government attorney and the Government was only interested in hearing from our client and his wife.  Mr. Lorenzon still prepared all the witnesses. Mr. Lorenzon spent several months preparing the case.  Our firm walks and experiences the tribulations and difficulty of immigration.  Mr. Lorenzon even went to the temple with them just before the hearing!  Mr. Lorenzon saw first handed how close knit and dependant our client’s family was on his presence.  Because of our commitment to our clients, Mr. Lorenzon was able to show the Court and the Government the necessity our client’s continued presence in the United States. On the day of the hearing, Mr. Lorenzon ensured that he and his family were present in court.  His wife, children, mother, father, in-laws, uncles, aunts, and grandmother filled the Court room for the hearing.  The Government accepted the expert’s report without that person’s testimony.  Mr. Lorenzon questioned our client and his wife to explain their story to the court, their life, the dependence that his family had on him and the result extreme hardship that would ensue if he could not stay in the United States.         Over two hours of testimony, the Immigration Judge commented that Mr. Lorenzon preparation of the record was thorough and complete, including his interrogation of our client and his wife.  The Government hardly asked any questions.  The waiver was approved and the application for adjustment of status was approved.  Jason Lorenzon handled this case. 

One of our clients had received a final order of deportation which was entered in absentia in 1997.  Our client was apprehended by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement in early August of this year and placed in detention.  Our client originally from Yemeni had been in the United States since 1992, paid his taxes and is the father of four children.  One of his children has a severe and significant medical condition requiring his father’s uninterrupted presence.  Attorney Jason Lorenzon wrote the brief, memorandum and ensured that there was enough supporting medical evidence  and documentation, including the fact that he paid all of his taxes since he has been in the United States, to warrant a favorable grant.  Once Immigrations and Customs Enforcement reviewed the application, it was granted.  Our client was released and placed on an order of supervision.  When placed on an order of supervision, he is able to have a work authorization card and more importantly tend to his family.  Attorney Jason Lorenzon worked tirelessly on this case and now our client has been reunited with his family.

After our client had been detained on his final order of removal for over 180 days, we recommended filing a habeas corpus petition in federal court in Alabama.  We prepared and filed the petition.  We are happy to report that we were able to get our client released from ICE custody after filing the petition.  Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our clients originally applied for cancellation of removal and the applications were denied by an Immigration Judge in San Francisco.  The case was appealed and the Board remanded the case to allow for more evidence on the issue of hardship.  We presented a substantial amount of evidence and called two experts to testify at the final hearing.  After considering the evidence, the Immigration Judge reversed her earlier decision and granted our clients cancellation of removal based on exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their USC children.  Scott Bratton handled the case.

One of our clients was placed in deportation proceedings when his employment based application was denied.  He retained our firm to assist him in this process.  Our team lead by Attorney Scott Bratton and Jason Lorenzon assessed what his applications for relief from deportation were and filed them as soon as possible so he could get a new work authorization and continue working in the United States during the pendency of his deportation case which can take several years. 

Our client was granted withholding of removal by an Immigration Judge several years ago.  Scott Bratton represented him on this case.  His previous legalization application filed before he retained our firm had been denied.  However, subsequently there was a settlement agreement on old legalization cases that we believed provided a legal basis to reopen his case.  We contacted our client and informed him of this possibility.  We then filed a detailed motion to reopen his case on the basis that he established eligibility for legalization.  In September 2010, which is 23 years after his application was denied, we received a notice that USCIS reopened the case.  This case provides an example of how we look out for our clients even after the case for which we were hired has been completed.  We were hired for removal and successfully obtained relief.  However, when the settlement was issued after the case was closed, we pulled the file and contacted our client because he was obviously unaware of the settlement.  This enabled him to reverse the denial of the earlier denial.  Scott Bratton handled the case.

One of our clients, a Chinese national is married to a United States Citizen and is an arriving alien who is also subject to an order of deportation.  Because of the regulations and the law, this client still has a basis in which to get their green card.  Our team filed a I-130 immigrant visa petition, an I-485 Green Card Application and an I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Document.  The Employment Authorization Document permit an alien to accept employment, get a social security number, driver’s license and other benefits.  It is a first step to gaining lawful permanent resident status.   Attorney Jason Lorenzon is overseeing this case and when a request for further evidence was required by the USCIS, Attorney Lorenzon made sure that all the necessary documents were filed so that our client can receive this all important benefit during the immigration process. 

One of our clients, a national of Ecuador was placed into removal proceedings.  His case is still pending in front of an immigration judge.  Testimony was taken on his asylum application Although no decision has been issued, he is still eligible for a work authorization card.  Attorney Jason Lorenzon represented him in his hearing and filed a I-765 application on his behalf.  It was approved and he will be able work, get a driver’s license and social security number pending the adjudication of his case and even appeal if that becomes necessary. 

One of our clients, a national of El Salvador has been placed into proceedings.  Our team of lawyers lead by Scott Bratton and Jason Lorenzon on this case determined the appropriate avenues of relief.  She will not have a hearing in front of the Immigration Judge for up to two years.  Our team carefully filed the appropriate avenues of relief that would enable him to have a work authorization card while her case was pending.  Attorney Danja Thercka filed the appropriate applications in open court  and her work authorization was granted.  This will enable her to legally work, get a driver’s license and a social security number while her case is pending. 

One of our clients, a Mexican National has been placed into proceedings.  Our team of lawyers lead by Scott Bratton and Jason Lorenzon on this case determined the appropriate avenues of relief.  He will not have a hearing in front of the Immigration Judge for up to two years.  Our team carefully filed the appropriate avenues of relief that would enable him to have a work authorization card while his case was pending.  Our team filed the appropriate application and his work authorization was granted.  This will enable him to legally work, get a driver’s license and a social security number while his case is pending. 

A Chinese national was an arriving alien who had a final order of deportation.  Since this person was in exclusion proceedings, and was married to a United States Citizen, they were eligible to receive their green card.  Attorney Jason Lorenzon successfully filed a motion to reopen their case once the green card application was approved.  The Motion to Reopen was filed in the New York Immigration Court and quickly granted by the Immigration Judge.   Our client is a legal permanent resident and no longer subject to a final order of deportation! 

One of our clients was placed into proceedings and was eligible for a work authorization card during proceedings. Even though the Immigration Judge denied his case, our team found legal errors and appealed his case to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Our team filed a work authorization which was granted and our client can still legally work, receive or renew a driver’s license pending the appeal of their case.

Our client hired us after she was detained by ICE in El, Paso, Texas. She was placed in removal proceedings because she entered as a K-1 fiance but did not marry within 90 days. We immediately filed a motion for bond with the Court in El Paso, Texas. After a bond hearing, our, client was released. She then married her fiancé and he filed an I-130 petition which was ultimately approved. We argued that our client was eligible to adjust status despite the fact she did not marry her fiancé within 90 days as required by the terms of her K-1. This is a complicated argument involving the interplay of the statute and regulations. After consideration of our argument, the Immigration Judge agreed that a K-1 who marries the petitioner after 90 days can still adjust status under the law as long as there is an approved I-130. The case was then set for an adjustment hearing before another Immigration Judge. In August 2010, our client was granted adjustment of status by the Immigration Court. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client hired us after his adjustment of status application was denied as a matter of discretion by the Immigration Judge. The basis for the denial was that the IJ questioned the validity of the marriage and used some minor discrepancies as to the marriage to determine that adjustment was not warranted as a matter of discretion. On appeal, we argued that the IJ's decision was improper. We argued that it was improper to look at the validity of the current marriage after the I-130 had been approved. In August 2010, a three-member panel of the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed that the Judge's decision was incorrect and that he was not permitted to question the validity of the marriage. The case was sent back to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings since the original decision was incorrect as a matter of law. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client retained us after he was detained by ICE due to the fact that he has a final order of removal. He was detained in Oakdale, Louisiana. He was detained more than 180 days and ICE refused to release him. We filed a habeas corpus motion in district court in Louisiana. After filing the motion, our client was released from ICE custody.

Our client came to us to apply for naturalization. He had been told by several attorneys that he could not apply for naturalization and that he may be deported because he registered to vote several years ago. When speaking with our client, it was clear that he did not intend to register to vote and did not even realize that he had done so. We recommended filing his naturalization application based on a DHS memo that sets forth that registering to vote does not result in an automatic denial of the naturalization application. At the interview, which was attended by Scott Bratton from our office, our client was asked many questions regarding his registration to vote and gave a sworn statement. We also submitted evidence to corroborate his claim. We are happy to report that our client's naturalization application has been approved. Scott Bratton handled the case along with Danja Therecka.

Our client was ordered removed after his cancellation of removal application was denied. At the hearing, our client informed the judge that he intended to have the mother of his child testify but she was unavailable to testify that day because she was required to appear in another court. A continuance was requested on this basis. The request for a continuance was denied. We filed an appeal. We argued that a continuance should have been granted because the unavailability of the witness was beyond the control of the client. The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed and remanded the case to allow for the testimony of a crucial witness. Scott Bratton handled the appeal.

One of our clients, a Lebanese National, faced deportation proceedings years ago and unfortunately received a final order of deportation. Our team was successful in getting his case re-opened. In the meantime, he married an American Citizen and our team filed an I-130 immigrant visa petition. He had an interview with USCIS and both he, his wife and new born came to the interview. Attorney Jason Lorenzon attended the interview with our client. The Officer could not understand why there was a final order, but Attorney Lorenzon stated that the case was re-opened and the interview could proceed as scheduled. The officer understood and the interview took less than 20 minutes. If the marriage occurs while the alien is in deportation proceedings, the marriage is presumed fraudulent. The filing of the visa petition by our senior paralegal Fabiola Cini, the preparation for the interview by Attorney Larry Hadfield and the interview itself attended by Attorney Jason Lorenzon ensured a short interview resulting in an approval! . Our client will be able to adjust and get his green card! 

We were hired after our client was placed in removal proceedings. Upon looking into the matter, we suspected our client, who is from El Salvador, was eligible for special rule cancellation of removal under NACARA. She was in the United States at the proper time and she believed that she timely filed TPS although she had no paperwork. We immediately filed a Freedom of Information Act request to get her immigration file. Upon review of the file, we were able to establish her eligibility for NACARA and filed the appropriate application with the Immigration Court. The case was set for a hearing in July 2010. After conducting a hearing on the matter, our client was granted special rule cancellation of removal under NACARA. Scott Bratton handled the case.

When our client hired us, he had a final order of removal from 2000 in Chicago. He did not attend his hearing at that time. Our client was only a minor when he failed to attend his hearing. We were able to successfully reopen his case in 2009. Our client was the beneficiary of an approved I-130 filed by his step-father when he was a minor. Under the Child status Protection Act, our client was still considered a minor and an immediate relative on his step-father's petition. Once the removal case was reopened, we filed for adjustment of status and we were able to get deportation proceedings terminated. Our client was scheduled for an interview on his green card application in Atlanta, Georgia in July 2010. We are happy to report that after a decade of having no status in the United States, our client received his green card. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Both Ms. L and her husband Mr. N had final order. Mr. N's father filed an I-130 petition before April 30, 2001 for him, so 245i applied to Mr. N. Since Ms. L married Mr. L, she became a derivative beneficiary of the I-130 petition. Ms. L presented fake passport at the entry, so the road map was to get Mr. N LPR status first to allow Ms. L to have a qualifying relative for I-601. Our office filed I-485/485A directly with USCIS for Ms. L and Mr. N, and Motion to Reopen with BIA for both of them. After the Motion was denied by BIA, we filed Petition for Review to circuit court. While the Petition for Review was pending with circuit court, Ms. L and Mr. N were interviewed by CIS. After the interview Mr. N was granted LPR status and became the qualifying relative of Ms. L. Now our office is preparing a I-601 packet for Ms. L and will file ASAP. LPR status is warranted for Ms. L.

For many times Margaret W. Wong's firm has proved that we are the best in complicated immigration law practice. Mr. L had a final order. He retained us in 2008. After we filed I-730 for him in December, 2008, we filed joint motion to reopen to DHS and motion to terminate the case with BIA. DHS agreed to join us and the motion to terminate the case was approved by BIA. Therefore Mr. L's final order was lifted. We filed I-485 application in April, 2010, and the application was approved 2 days ago, 10 days after Mr. L was interviewed.

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.

Our client came in 1991 with no travel document. He was paroled in with I-94 after being released from detention. As an arriving alien, despite having an order of exclusion, he was eligible to adjust his status with USCIS. In December 2007, we filed I-130/I-485 for adjustment of status through his son, who was a United States citizen as the petitioner of the I-130. USCIS demanded us to submit additional information, which we did in February 2008. The green card interview was conducted on August 18, 2008 and the I-130 was approved just a week later. The officer said that she needed to double check on the I-94 document that was misplaced. While waiting for a response ICE went to pick him up as an illegal immigrant in early October 2008. Our firm worked with the deportation officers to defer his deportation until the I-485 adjudication. Our firm also followed up constantly until USCIS approved the I-485 (green card application). We were able to successfully get this client out of immigration jail and receive his green card approval (I-485) in November 15, 2008. Now he is free to live in the United States as a permanent resident. this case was handled by Scott Bratton with help of our staff.

We were hired by our client after he was detained because he had a final order of removal. Our client was a lawful permanent resident who was placed in removal proceedings because DHS alleged that he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude within five years of admission to the US. After significant litigation, we were able to get the deportation case reopened. During the reopened proceedings, we asked the new Immigration Judge to reconsider the prior decision finding our client removable as charged. This decision was made prior to our representation. We argued that the criminal conviction was not a crime involving moral turpitude. After consideration of our motion and arguments, the Immigration Judge terminated deportation proceedings. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client was placed into removal proceedings after her asylum application was denied. We also represented her husband who had an adjustment of status case pending with USCIS. There were several legal issues in the husband's case and it was originally denied. We were able to successfully reopen the case and his adjustment of status application was ultimately approved. We then filed an adjustment application for the wife with the Immigration Court. We were able to get proceedings terminated. After an interview with USCIS, the adjustment of status application was approved. Our attorneys Scott Bratton and Debbie Lee handled the case,

Our client had an in absentia order of removal for failing to appear at his removal hearing. We were able to get his case reopened and applied for adjustment of status. At our request, proceedings were terminated. Our client was interviewed by USCIS on his application. Although the application was originally denied, we filed a motion to reopen because the denial was improper. The motion to reopen was granted. In October 2008, the adjustment of status application was granted. Our attorney Scott Bratton represented our client.

Our client came to us after he was placed in removal proceedings when his asylum and NACARA cases were referred to the Immigration Court. We renewed his request for asylum and NACARA. The issue in the NACARA case was that there was no proof that our client registered for benefits under the ABC agreement within the appropriate time frame. We argued that the filing of his asylum application was sufficient to show his intent to register for benefits under the agreement because the asylum application was pending at the time the agreement was implemented. We also argued that his testimony was sufficient to show that he actually did file an ABC registration form. With respect to the second argument, we noted that the former INS did not have a record of all ABC registrants. After a full hearing on the NACARA application, the Immigration Judge agreed with both of our arguments and granted NACARA relief. Our attorney Scott Bratton handled the case.

It is so rewarding when, after talking to a desperate family so many times, we are finally able to break the good news: "your husband will be released from jail today". We know the impact of the announcement, and we feel so much joy for the family. Our client and his family had green cards. Last time he traveled, upon returning from Mexico they had him detained because he had plead guilty of a criminal charge in a Municipal Court more than 10 years ago. His detention was a mistake for many reasons: he was an arriving alien with a green card who met certain exceptions, so he could have been called to Court while not detained. Also when he pled guilty, he had not been informed about the legal consequences of his plea. In fact he thought it was a minor charge and did not feel guilty at all, but was told this was what he could do to terminate the case. The family hired us when he was in jail. We immediately filed Habeas Corpus and a release request. We also asked for cancellation of removal, since they had ordered his deportation. We followed up constantly and we went back to the Municipal Court where we asked for a copy of his transcript and filed a Motion to Vacate the guilty plea. We submitted the right evidence to the Immigration Judge about his moral character and his criminal case. A hearing was scheduled for July 22, 2008 and we prepared the client over the phone and the family in our offices. During the hearing we were able to present the case as it was and the Judge agreed that if the criminal case was terminated he would not object to terminate removal proceedings. We attended a hearing in the Municipal Court and were able to have them Vacate the plea of guilty, and the criminal case was dismissed. We submitted this decision to the Immigration Judge who after an opinion of DHS finally granted the Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings. This decision was issued in August 21, 2008. On the same day we requested his immediate release by fax, phone, letter and were able to get an answer from the officer: Our client would be released that same day! That is when we called the family to give the good news and they were very grateful. Our client was also so grateful that he gave us more work: "Please now help me recover the green card and passport that were confiscated". We did, of course. Scott Bratton handled this case with help of attorneys Troy Murphy and J.P. Sarmiento

The journey of an immigrant in his efforts to obtain a green card can be longer and harder than his first decision to leave his country. One of our clients had a long and difficult struggle over the years, until he finally was able to become a resident. Our client, Chief technology officer came from India as a student and later started working under an H1B (temporary work) visa. We helped him renew the H1B to the maximum possible, and also helped him recapture some months for the period of time he was away from USA. After his last H1B extension was denied, we filed a Motion to Reopen and our client waited for the result. This Motion was denied, but neither the client, nor us received any notice. We only found out when he was put in removal proceedings for staying in USA without authorization. We asked for his Voluntary Departure, since had overstayed for less than a year and was ready to leave the country by his own means. As a consequence he did not receive a bar (prohibition) to return to USA for a number of years, as would have happened, if he was deported. We had been preparing his Labor Certification with his employer who would sponsor him for an I-140 (Immigrant Work Visa). After it was approved we filed the I-140 and I-485 (green Card) petition. USCIS issued Intent to Deny the I-140 and we had to showed evidence that the employer had ability to pay the proffered salary. We emphasized that the company had enough assets and capital investments, but the fact that it was a new company had to be taken in consideration when evaluating their ability to pay. We were relieved to see that USCIS finally understood this. He was approved for a Work Visa in February 2008 and was scheduled for an interview for his green card case in April 2008. Unfortunately, our client got into trouble and was charged for a misdemeanor a few days before his interview. We had to reschedule the interview which finally took place by the end of June 2008. Our attorney assisted to the interview and made sure the count of days of his legal status was not an issue, validating both the voluntary departure request and the recaptured days during the H1B. We were thrilled when he was approved his green card in August 2008. Our client was very happy and grateful to us for walking with him through the whole process, for so many years. Our attorney Lori Pinjuh handled this case with help of attorney Troy Murphy and the rest of our staff.

Our client retained us after he was put in removal proceedings. We immediately filed a Motion to Terminate with the Immigration Court in New York. After consideration of our Motion, the Immigration Judge terminated removal proceedings. This will allow our client to pursue his green card. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client hired us after he was detained pursuant to a prior drug conviction. He was placed in removal proceedings based on his criminal conviction that occurred after he obtained his green card. We then filed a Motion to Vacate his drug conviction. After a hearing on the Motion, the Motion was granted. Based on an agreement with the prosecutor's office, they agreed to dismiss the charges. We then filed a Motion to Terminate removal proceedings. The Motion was granted in August 2008 and our client was released. He now can continue living with his family in the United States. Scott Bratton and Troy Murphy handled the case.

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

Our clients retained our firm to represent them at an I-130 interview in New York. Our client was in removal proceedings and needed an I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) approval to be eligible for adjustment of status. The I-130 was previously filed by another attorney and we were able to push to get a quick interview. After an extensive interview where we supplied the documentation to support the case, the I-130 was approved. Our client can now proceed with her green card application. Scott Bratton handled the case.

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

Our client hired us after he was detained by ICE after he was released from federal prison. We were successfully able to secure a bond from the Immigration Court in Louisiana. We also applied for an I-130 because he was married to a United States citizen. After an interview on the I-130, the case was approved in New York. Our client can now apply for a green card. Scott Bratton and Troy Murphy handled the case.

Our client hired us after he had been in the U.S. for a long period of time. He failed to maintain his status. He was placed in removal proceedings and we were hired to handle the case. We applied for withholding of removal based on his conversion from being a Muslim to a Christian. We argued that he would be persecuted in Iran due to his conversion and length of residence in the U.S. After a contested hearing on the matter, the immigration judge agreed with our arguments and granted withholding of removal. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client, a Pakistani Citizen, was previously placed in removal proceedings before the Immigration Court because of overstaying her visitor visa. The case was administratively closed due to lack of prosecution from the government. Later she married a US Citizen and in November 2006 they hired our office to pursue her Green Card application with the Immigration Court. Our office filed a Motion to Re-calendar her case before the Court, but our Motion was rejected. The court could not accept the case again because of lack of prosecution. Our office filed Green Card application with CIS in April 2007. CIS administratively closed the case for lack of jurisdiction arguing that only Immigration Court had jurisdiction over the case. In August 2007 our office then filed a complaint with the Federal Court to solve the conflict of jurisdiction. Our client's Green Card application was approved in June 2008. Scott Bratton handled this case assisted by Fabiola Cini and Francis Ramirez.

We were hired after our client had an in absentia order of removal for failing to attend his hearing. Our client stated that he did not receive his hearing notice. Although he updated DHS with his new address, the hearing notice was sent to his old address. DHS argued that the case should not be reopened because our client did not inform the Court of his new address. We argued that informing DHS of his new address was sufficient. In May 2008, the Immigration Judge rescinded the in absentia order and reopened the case. Scott Bratton and Kristie Lumakin worked on the case.

Our client retained us after his application for Temporary Protected Status that he had filed in 2001 was denied and he was placed in removal proceedings. He had applied to it because of the situation of violence in his home country, El Salvador. After demonstrating our client's eligibility, he was granted Temporary Protected Status by the Immigration Judge. Troy Murphy handled this case for our office.

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

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

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

Our client applied for adjustment of status (I-485). However, he had a criminal conviction for a serious offense. We were able to successfully argue that his criminal conviction could not serve as a basis for deportation and that adjustment of status was warranted as a matter of discretion. Our client's case was approved in May 2008. Scott Bratton attended the adjustment of status interview.

Our client, a Mexican citizen, entered US without inspection in May 1998. He was placed in Removal Proceedings in 2003. He was detained and then released after his US Citizen wife paid the bond in September 2003. They moved to a different address after to bond was posted and informed CIS for the change of address. Since he had not heard anything regarding his case for a while, he went to an info pass appointment to CIS to request on status. At this time he was informed that an absentia order of deportation was issued on his case and after being detained for only a couple of days he was deported to Mexico. Our client was protected under INA 245 (i) due to an approved labor certification filed on April 23, 2001. He was also married to US Citizen in 2003 but she never filed an I-130, Petition for Alien Relative on his behalf. As soon as he was detained by ICE, our office filed in a record time a Motion to Reopen to Rescind in Absentia Removal Order with Immigration Court arguing that our client failed to receive proper notice of his hearing. We also filed I-130, Petition for Alien Relative. Our motion to reopen was granted and his case was reopened but our client was already deported. We attempted to negotiate with ICE to bring him back because he should have not been deported while the motion was still pending. However, ICE could not bring him back at the time. We had to continue our battle to bring our client back to his family in US. Since case was reopened he was soon scheduled for his hearing before Immigration Court. We appeared on his removal hearing before Immigration Court and his case was terminated after we argued that he is eligible to adjust his status to a Permanent Resident. His I-130 was also approved in May 2008 and our office will now continue consular processing of his Green Card based on the I-130 approval. We are expecting our client to be back in US very soon. He does not have a bar of returning because his removal proceeding has been terminated. Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong & Assoc. assisted by Fabiola Cini.

We filed an appeal of the Immigration Judge's decision finding our client subject to removal for an offense related to a controlled substance. We argued that there was not a sufficient relationship between the offense for which our client was convicted and a controlled substance. The Board agreed with our analysis and found that our client was not subject to removal as charged by DHS. Scott Bratton handled the case

Our client came to us after she realized she had been ordered deportation for failing to appear at her hearing. She did not realize that she even was in deportation proceedings because she was in valid nonimmigrant status. However, she had been put in proceedings after her asylum case was referred to the Immigration Court. We found that the Immigration Court did not properly enter an in absentia order and filed a Motion to Reopen on this ground. In March 2008, the Immigration Court in New York granted the Motion to Reopen. Our client can now move to terminate proceedings. Scott Bratton and JP Sarmiento handled the case.

Our client hired us after she had been detained because she missed her hearing over 10 years ago. She was charged with being subject to deportation due to an old criminal conviction. Our client did not get notice of the hearing although the Government argued the proper notice was given because our client failed to file a change of address form. We argued that the in absentia order of deportation was improperly entered because the Government failed to submit proof that our client was subject to deportation as charged. The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed with our argument and granted the Motion. Our client has been released from custody. Scott Bratton and JP Sarmiento handled the case. 

On July 2006 we had our first contact with a client when he was in jail. His detention had been ordered three years before because he had failed to appear for a hearing. In the same month we filed a Motion to Reopen, motion to rescind previous removal order, and request to release, based on negligent misrepresentation by previous attorney. Apparently, the previous attorney had failed to inform DHS and Immigration Court of immigrant's change of address, and had also failed to notify him of the hearing, even if he had been regularly calling the attorney. We also filed a Bar Complaint against previous attorney. This case was worked with a thorough follow up at Court and constant communication with client and his family. Finally, on December 2007 the BIA (Board of Immigration Appeals) ordered that the appeal is sustained, proceedings reopened and record remanded for further proceedings. This was a remarkable decision, since it is very difficult to get approvals from BIA nowadays. Currently we have filed a FOIA petition to obtain copy of his past records and continue the case.

Our client hired Margaret Wong and Associates after he was picked up on an outstanding removal order. He had missed his removal hearing. When discussing the case with our client, he advised us that he never received the hearing notice despite the fact it had allegedly been mailed to the proper address. We then filed a motion to reopen with supporting evidence to show that there was a lack of proper notice. The motion was denied by the Immigration Judge. However, on appeal, the Board agreed that we submitted sufficient proof that our client failed to receive his hearing notice despite the evidence that it was sent via regular mail to the proper address. JP Sarmiento and Scott Bratton handled the case. Our client has been released from ICE custody. 

During the week of December 17, 2007, we were able to get 2 clients released on bond granted by an Immigration Judge where bond had previously been denied. Scott Bratton and Margaret Wong handled these cases. 

Our client retained Margaret Wong & Associates after being detained by the Department of Homeland Security due to his final deportation order. Our client was unaware that he had a deportation order. The deportation case was based on several criminal convictions. We filed a motion to reopen asking that the case be reopened to allow our client to apply for 212(c) relief. The motion was originally denied due to an erroneous belief that motions to reopen for 212(c) relief could not be used when the underlying deportation order was an in absentia order. Upon reconsideration, the Board granted the motion to reopen. The case was then scheduled for a hearing on the § 212(c) waiver application in December 2007. After a full hearing, the Immigration Judge granted the § 212(c) waiver. Scott Bratton handled the case for our office. 

Our client retained us after his two previous applications for naturalization had been denied and eh was placed in deportation proceedings as it was alleged he lied upon his last entry into the United States and on his application for permanent residence regarding his prior J-1 waiver. Our office contested these allegations and had the matter set for a hearing before the Immigration Court. After hearing all the evidence at a hearing on the issue of whether our client, by fraud or willful misrepresentation, lied regarding his J-1 waiver, the Immigration Judge found our client did not commit fraud or willfully misrepresent his status and terminated our client's deportation proceedings. Later we filed a Motion to Reopen with a fee waiver for the N400 (Application for Naturalization) and it was granted. The client had new fingerprints taken and his N400 was subsequently approved. Our attorney, Troy Murphy, handled this case for our office.

Our client represented a Sikh woman from India.  Although she had never been persecuted, she feared returning to India,  After a four hour hearing with the Immigration Judge, the Judge granted withholding of removal as we requested.  Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong & Associates.
 
Our firm represented two Chinese individuals who were being detained by ICE in Pennsylvania without bond.  We requested an expedited bond redetermination hearing, which was granted.  At our request, the Immigration Judge granted bond in each case.  Our clients have posted bond and have been released.  Scott Bratton handled the case for our firm.

Our client was charged with being subject to removal for commission of an aggravated felony.  We were able to successfully argue that the criminal conviction was not an aggravated felony.  Removal proceedings were terminated.  Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong & Associates

Our client hired Margaret Wong and Associates after he was placed in removal proceedings for a drug trafficking conviction.  He was subject to mandatory detention due to his criminal conviction.  At his hearing, we denied the allegation that our client had been convicted of an aggravated felony and requested cancellation of removal.  The Immigration Judge determined that our client’s conviction was for an aggravated felony and thus found him ineligible for cancellation of removal.  We appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals.  The Board agreed with our argument and remanded the case to the Immigration Judge for a full hearing on our client’s cancellation of removal application.  We called four witnesses, including an expert, in support of the cancellation of removal application.  After hearing our arguments and considering the evidence presented, the Court granted cancellation of removal.  This will allow our client, a long-time lawful permanent resident, to remain in the US with his family.  Scott Bratton and Troy Murphy handled the case for Margaret Wong and Associates.

When our client retained Margaret Wong & Associates, he had a final removal order for failing to attend his hearing.  We filed a Motion to Reopen and argued that his case should be reopened to allow him to apply for a waiver under INA Section 212(c).  He had been placed in removal proceedings for multiple theft convictions, one of which was an aggravated felony.  We were successful in reopening the case.  His case was then set for a 212(c) hearing.  After hearing the evidence in the case, the Immigration Judge granted a 212(c) waiver, which allows our client to remain with his family in the US as a lawful permanent resident.  Scott Bratton represented our client.

Our client had previously retained us in 1992 to obtain a 212(c) waiver for her pre-1992 criminal convictions.  Unfortunately, after our office obtained this waiver for our client, our client was placed in removal proceedings for a second time for having committed three new offenses after receiving the waiver.  Our office filed Motions to Vacate our client’s guilty pleas in all three cases.  All three of our client’s convictions were vacated and, as a result, our office was able to get our client’s removal proceedings terminated for a second time.  Troy Murphy handled both the criminal and deportation matters for our client regarding this matter.

When our client hired Margaret Wong & Associates, he had a final order of deportation.  He had also received a letter from the Government asking him to report for immediate deportation.  Upon reviewing the case, we concluded that our client could file a motion to reopen his deportation case based on 2001 regulations regarding the availability of a waiver of deportation under INA Section 212(c).  We were able to successfully negotiate with the Government to allow our client to remain in the United States while his motion to reopen was pending.  Although there was a jurisdictional issue regarding our client’s eligibility for reopening under the regulations, we were able to convince the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen the case.  In August 2006, our client finally had his hearing on his 212(c) waiver application.  After considering the evidence, the Immigration Judge granted a 212(c) waiver, which allowed our client to get his green card back.  It also will allow him to apply for citizenship.  The successful outcome of the case also allows our client to remain in the US will his family, including his United States citizen daughter.  Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong & Associates. Fabiola Cini also worked on this case.

Our client is married to a lawful permanent resident.  He is also in removal proceedings.  His wife just passed the naturalization test and is set to be sworn in as a United States citizen in the near future.  The I-130 petition she filed on behalf of our client is still pending.  At his removal hearing, we were able to get the Immigration Judge to administratively close the case to allow for our client’s wife to naturalize and to allow the I-130 to be adjudicated.  This will allow him to apply for adjustment of status with the Immigration Judge.  Scott Bratton attended the removal hearing.

When our client hired our office, he had been convicted of drug trafficking in Ohio.  The Department of Homeland Security placed him in removal proceedings due to this conviction.  Although he was subject to removal, we argued that the drug trafficking conviction was not an aggravated felony.  The significance of this is that an aggravated felony conviction would prevent our client from applying for cancellation of removal.  If cancellation of removal is granted, our client would be able to remain in the United States as a lawful permanent resident.  The Immigration Judge disagreed with our argument and found that our client should be deported.  We appealed the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals.  After consideration of our novel legal argument on this issue, the Board found that the Ohio drug trafficking conviction was not an aggravated felony.  Thus, the Board concluded that our client could apply for cancellation of removal.  The case was sent back to the Immigration Judge for a hearing later this year on the cancellation of removal application.  Scott Bratton handled the case.

The Board of Immigration Appeals determined that removal proceedings against our client must be terminated because she was not subject to removal for fraud or a material misrepresentation.  Scott Bratton handled the case for our firm.

When our client retained our firm, he was in removal proceedings.  We applied for withholding of removal from Mauritania.  After hearing evidence on the claim, the Immigration Judge granted withholding of removal.  Scott Bratton represented our client.

When our client retained Margaret Wong & Associates, he wanted to apply for naturalization. However, he had a prior criminal conviction that subjected him to deportation. We immediately filed a motion to vacate the criminal conviction. The motion was granted and the criminal conviction was vacated as the criminal court failed to advise our client of the potential immigration consequences of his guilty plea as required by statute. The original criminal charges were then dismissed. We subsequently filed a naturalization application on behalf of our client. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) advised us that they intended to deny the application because our client was subject to deportation because the vacated conviction could still be used for immigration purposes. We filed a comprehensive response arguing that CIS’ position was wrong and that our client should be granted naturalization. After considering our response, CIS granted the naturalization application. Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong & Associates.

Our client retained us over ten years ago to assist him and his wife in obtaining their green cards after they were placed in deportation proceedings for being out of status. His wife was able to get her green card five years ago through the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), which provides some immigration benefits to “certain Nicaraguans, Cubans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, nationals of former Soviet bloc countries and their dependents”. However, the husband was unable to benefit as a derivative because he was not a citizen of Nicaragua. We then filed both I-130 and I-140 applications on his behalf, which were both approved. In January 2006, our client had his final deportation hearing to determine whether he could remain in the United States. At the hearing, the Immigration Judge granted his application for adjustment of status. Scott Bratton represented our client in the proceedings with the Immigration Court, while Ryan Hess assisted on the I-485.

When our client retained our office, his adjustment of status application had been denied and he had been placed in removal proceedings. His adjustment application was denied because he left the US on advance parole after accumulating more than one year of unlawful presence, triggering a ten year bar. He was erroneously advised by his former attorney that he could leave. After he returned to the US, our client married a US citizen. Due to procedural issues with applying for adjustment of status before the immigration judge, we needed to get removal proceedings terminated and file the adjustment of status application and waiver request (I-601) with CIS. The waiver was needed because our client had a ten year bar for unlawful presence. We were successful in getting removal proceedings terminated so that our client could proceed with his adjustment application with CIS. We filed the I-485 and I-601 waiver with CIS. In January 2006, CIS granted our client’s adjustment of status application and his waiver request. After a long fight, our client is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong and Associates, while Ryan Hess and Fred Calope assisted.