Our client's withholding of removal case was remanded from the Second Circuit after they overturned the Agency's finding that our client was not credible and that he had not established past persecution. The case was set for another hearing before the Immigration Court based on the findings of the Second Circuit that our client was credible and had established past persecution. However, at the hearing, over our objection, the Court went beyond the scope of the remand and requested more evidence as well as reevaluating the evidence. The Judge denied withholding of removal. We appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board agreed with our argument that the Immigration Judge acted improperly when the hearing went beyond the scope of the remand. The Board sent the case back to the Immigration Judge and held that the only remaining issue is whether DHS can overcome the presumption of future persecution that arises where an applicant establishes past persecution. DHS must show that there has been a fundamental change in circumstances or that internal relocation is reasonable. Scott Bratton is the attorney handling the case.
Our client's motion to reopen was denied by the IJ. He claimed he did not receive notice of the hearing and that is the reason he did not appear. We were hired to appeal to the BIA. On appeal, we argued that the IJ ignored our argument that the order of removal was improper because our client did not receive his Notice to Appear. The Board agreed, vacated the IJ's decision, and remanded the case to the Immigration Court. Scott Bratton handled the case.
Our client was granted asylum by an Immigration Judge and DHS appealed. The Board of Immigration Appeals held that the Judge's decision was flawed and remanded the case for further consideration of the credibility finding and whether asylum was warranted under the law. The IJ requested briefs on the issues set forth by the Board on remand. We filed a comprehensive brief addressing the issues. Upon consideration of the briefs, the IJ agreed with our position and reaffirmed the prior grant of asylum. Scott Bratton handled the case.
A Chinese National received his green card despite having a final order of deportation under the Arriving alien doctrine. This means that when he came to the United States he was "paroled" in. Many years ago he presented an asylum case to an immigration judge that was denied resulting in a final order of deportation. Since that point, our client married a United States Citizen and has a family here in the United States. Our team submitted a I-130, and I-485 application since he was married to a United States Citizen. Because he had a validly issued I-94 card stating that he was an arriving alien, the USCIS could and did adjudicate his applications and granted him a green card. Although this grant usurps the unexecuted final order of deportation, Immigration and Customs Enforcement still views this as a final order that requires execution. Attorney Jason Lorenzon filed a motion to terminate with the Immigration Judge and the Department of Homeland Security opposed this motion. Since this motion was opposed the Judge denied the motion to terminate. Attorney Jason Lorenzon filed another motion, and the DHS still opposed and the Immigration Judge denied the motion to terminate again. Then Attorney Jason Lorenzon filed on behalf of our client, an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Department of Homeland Security wrote a brief in non-opposition of our appeal and the Board of Immigration Appeals reopened and terminated removal proceedings. Our client no longer has a final order of deportation and can enjoy all of the benefits of being a lawful permanent resident!
Our client hired us after he was charged for having been convicted of an aggravated felony. If DHS prevailed on the charge, our client was not eligible for any relief. DHS submitted conviction records in an attempt to establish that our client had been convicted of an aggravated felony. We argued that the records show that the Indictment was amended and that the records do not establish that the crime for which our client was convicted is an aggravated felony. The Immigration Judge disagreed and issued an order of removal. We appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. In March 2010, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued its decision agreeing with our argument and finding that DHS did not establish that our client had been convicted of an aggravated felony. Scott Bratton handled the case.
Our client was ordered removed for failing to attend his hearing. We filed a motion to reopen claiming our client did not attend the hearing because he did not receive notice of his hearing. He provided DHS with an update of his change of address but not the Immigration Court. However, the Notice to Appear was not filed with the Court until well after it was issued. Thus, he could not have changed his address with the Court when he moved since the Court did not yet have the case. The Immigration Judge denied the motion because he found our client should have filed a change of address with the Court. We appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board agreed with our arguments and granted the motion to reopen. The Board found that by providing his address to DHS, he should have received notice of the hearing at the new address. Scott Bratton handled the case.