|
|||
Asylum
Our client came to us after being placed in asylum-only proceedings after he entered on a fake passport from a visa waiver country. He was detained by ICE at the time. He lost his asylum and his appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. We filed a petition for review with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. We also filed a habeas petition requesting release from custody. While the Sixth Circuit case was pending, our client was released from custody. After extensive briefing and oral argument, the Sixth Circuit granted the petition in a published decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding that if the IJ determines that our client's testimony is credible, he will have established past persecution. Our client was also married to a United States citizen. Due to the manner of his entry, USCIS would have sole jurisdiction over his application to adjust status. Therefore, we filed the adjustment of status application along with a waiver to USCIS. The interview was in January 2012. In February 2012, USCIS granted the adjustment of status application. Scott Bratton handled the case. Francis Fungsang attended the adjustment of status interview. A Chinese client came to our office in May to see if he can file I-730. His wife's asylum granted on 06/22/2001 and final grant on 12/16/2005. He married with his wife before final grant of her asylum, so she could file I-730 for him but she didn't know. She applied green card in December 2006 which was approved in September 2007. His I-730 was supposed to file within 2 years of asylum granted; however, he passed the 2 year period, and He asked many different attorneys and they said that they cannot file. Thus, he hired Margaret W. Wong and Associates, and we filed I-730 on 06/10/10. However, the USCIS denied his application on 12/29/10. We talked with the client and decided to file Motion to Reconsider on the following month. But MTR was denied too. So, we asked the client to re-file I-730 to USCIS on June 09, 2011, and we provide the proof of humanitarian reasons for I-730. Fingerprint was scheduled on September 07, 2011, and this case was approved on October 21, 2011. Attorney Scott Bratton and Paralegal Yolanda Chen worked very hard for the case.
Our clients are a family of 4 from Pakistan. They came on an H-1B/H-4 and were maintaining their status until their last extension was denied. They were also pursuing adjustment of status through an approved labor certification. The I-140 was denied and the appeal was denied. They did not learn of the appeal decision until months after it was issued. Our clients then hired us. In speaking with the husband, we learned that he had a fear of returning to Pakistan. He had a couple of minor incidents while he was there, but a combination of factors, including his time spent in the US, led him to believe he would be harmed upon his return. We filed an asylum application with USCIS arguing that exceptional circumstances existed for his delay in filing. Although he had been out of status almost two years, he was pursuing status and was not promptly advised of the final decision. USCIS referred the case to the Immigration Court. The asylum case was heard of the course of two hearings. We called an expert witness to testify as well. After considering the evidence and arguments, the Immigration Judge granted asylum. Scott Bratton handled the case. On July 15, 2011 an Indian national hired us for an asylum case. We filed the I589, application for Asylum in the same month of July 2011, on September 2011 client applied for a work permit. Mr. P was very happy when he received his work authorization card on November 2011. His asylum case is still pending and he has the opportunity to work legally in the United States of America. Our office was retained by a Chinese citizen on August 23, 2011 in order to apply for asylum. Our client entered the United States earlier that much on a F-1 visa to complete her Master's in Business Administration. Later that month, she discovered she was pregnant with twins. She had already undergone 2 forcible abortions in China because of the One Child policy. She feared returning to China to be subject to another abortion, sterilization and a heavy fine. Her asylum application was filed on September 30, 2011. Attorney Scott Bratton accompanied our client to her Asylum Interview. One week later, Attorney Bratton submitted a Brief in Support of Asylum. One week later, her asylum was approved without a hearing before an Immigration Judge. Attorneys Scott Bratton, Francis Fungsang and paralegal Yolanda Chen worked tirelessly to achieve a positive outcome in this case.
Our firm was retained to file an asylum claim with USCIS. Our client had just come from China. She previously had two abortions and was pregnant with twins. We filed her asylum application. Her asylum interview was held in November 2011 in Rosedale, New York. We argued that the abortions should be considered forced abortions under BIA case law. If they were considered to be forced abortions, our client would be eligible for asylum. Subsequent to the interview, we submitted a detailed brief setting forth our position. We just received the approval notice for our client's case. She can now bring her family to the United States. A client from Guatemala hired Margaret Wong & Associates to appeal an Immigration Judge's denial of his asylum petition. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed the appeal and a timely Petition for Review with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was filed. The parties agreed to remand the case to The Board of Immigration Appeals, however, in the meantime, the client's employment authorization renewal application was denied. On September 20, 2011, Attorney Scott Bratton filed a civil action in the Northern District of Ohio arguing that the USCIS incorrectly denied the client's application to renew his employment authorization. It was argued that the USCIS erroneously determined that the client filed his asylum application on the same day as his asylum hearing rather than when he actually filed it at a hearing 20 months earlier. Since more than 180 days passed between the filing of the asylum application and the subsequent denial, the client should have been eligible to apply for an employment authorization. It was further argued, that when the BIA remands a case to the Immigration Judge, the remand should re-start the asylum clock. On November 14, 2011, the USCIS ordered that the client's application for employment authorization be approved. The federal court case was withdrawn and client is now able to work while his asylum appeal is pending. Our client was a Chinese national who came to the United States on a tourist visa to visit her father, a permanent resident here for some time. After returning to China she became pregnant with her second child. As she was registered as living in an urban area, Chinese regulations made it illegal for her to have a second child. Wanting to protect her child and fearing the consequences should the government determine that she had broken the law, she returned immediately to the United States and sought asylum. Our firm worked diligently with our client and her asylum was duly granted. Our client also sought to secure asylum for her husband and three year old daughter, who had both remained in China. This request was filed in late February, 2011 and on July 19 the government granted the asylum applications allowing our client to reunite with her family here in the United States. Our Ghanaian client came to the U.S. on an F-1 visa in order to further pursue his academic career. His wife and two children came with him on an F-2 visa. After graduating from college, our client began working as an educational specialist for a correctional facility. His visa expired thereafter, and he sought asylum in order to remain in the country. After his previous attorney improperly filed his petition for asylum, our client sought our services. After examining his case, we concluded that the best course of action would be to petition for his asylum based on his fear that his youngest daughter, a U.S. citizen, would be subject to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) if they were forced to return to their native country. Given the fact that our client was from a specific region in Ghana where FGM is still practiced and generally goes unpunished, we made the case that our client had a well-founded fear for his daughter, and as such should not be removed from the U.S. With help from an expert testimony we arranged, we were able to obtain a grant of cancellation of deportation. However, the DHS appealed the grant of cancellation, therefore, we appealed the asylum denial. The case then went before the BIA, and the appeal the DHS filed was dismissed, which meant that the original decision stood, and our client and his spouse were able to attain permanent green cards. Our client hired us after his asylum application had been referred to the Immigration Court by the Asylum Office. The Asylum Office found that he was not statutorily eligible for asylum. Our client is from China and claimed that he suffered past persecution due to his opposition to the family planning policy. This includes his wife's forced abortion and forced IUD insertion, job loss, and a requirement to report to the Chinese Government for education. We worked with our client to obtain supporting documentation. His asylum application was heard by the Immigration Judge at two different hearings. After hearing arguments and considering the evidence, the Immigration Judge granted asylum in July 2011. Scott Bratton handled the case. Our client is a citizen of Burma. He lost his asylum case and had previously filed a motion to reopen that had been denied. He hired our office to file a motion to reopen his asylum case based on changed country conditions. We prepared the motion and submitted a great deal of supporting documentation. In May 2011, the Board of Immigration Appeals granted the motion to reopen. The case was sent back to the Immigration Court so that our client can pursue his new claim for asylum. Scott Bratton is handling the case. One of our clients, a national of Sierra Leone has been in the United States since the late 1990’s. She has an established life here, and USC children. Due to bad advice of lawyers, she eventually came to our firm in 2007 and we immediately listened to her incredible story. She was a victim of the practice of Female Genital Mutilation when she was younger in Sierra Leone. She escaped her country to Europe and eventually came to the United States to seek protection. Unfortunately, she did not receive the right advice. Mr. Lorenzon assisted our client in getting the proper documents from doctors, psychologists, expert reports and letters from family members proving the her horrific event that she endured as a young teenager in Sierra Leone. Mr. Lorenzon carefully prepared our client for her individual hearing over several months. After three hours of testimony and further litigation, Mr. Lorenzon was able to convince the Immigration Judge to grant our client withholding of removal over the Government’s objections. Our client is able to stay with her family in the United States and continue to work in the United States! Our client hired us to handle her asylum case after it had been referred to the Immigration Court by the Asylum Office. Our client was Chinese and a citizen of Indonesia. We represented her in her removal case. Although she had not lived in Indonesia for over 10 years, we presented evidence that she was the victim of several incidents in Indonesia because she was Chinese and that she had a fear of returning to Indonesia. We also presented evidence to establish an exception to the one-year filing deadline. After hearing the case, an Immigration Judge in Atlanta granted asylum. Scott Bratton handled the case. Our client appealed to the Board of immigration Appeals after his asylum case was denied by the Immigration Court based solely on the Judge’s finding that our client had firmly resettled in a third country. On appeal, we argued that the IJ’s analysis of the firm resettlement issue was improper and that the legal standard he used was incorrect. In May 2011, the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed that the Immigration Judge relied on an improper legal standard in finding our client had firmly resettled. Thus, the case was sent back to the Immigration Court for entry of a new decision under the correct legal standard. Scott Bratton handled the case. Our client came to our office because she wanted to apply for asylum. She was from Uzbekistan and we argued that she was persecuted because of her race. We filed the asylum application with USCIS. Within 2 weeks of the interview, the application was approved. As a result, our client and ger family can remain in the United States and apply for green cards in one year. One of our clients a national of China entered the United States in 1991. When he entered the United States, he came from another country in central America. When he arrived he had a fake Panamanian passport and asked for asylum. He was paroled in to the United States and filed the appropriate asylum application. He never had an interview nor was his case ever sent to an immigration judge. Years later in 2006, he married a United States Citizen. His wife filed an I-130 immigrant visa petition for him and an adjustment of status application. His case was scheduled for an interview, and immediately the immigration officer separated the couple. Attorney Jason Lorenzon asked the officer not to do that since he was never in deportation proceedings. A problem with the interpreter came up, in that the interpreter was not proficient in translating. Attorney Lorenzon worked with the officer and asked for a date that he could return with a certified translator. Mr. Lorenzon prepared the couple for an interview much like a New York “Stokes” interview. At the next interview, the couple was separated and the questions asked of both of them were similar answers and the couple knew what to expect. After a few minutes of interviewing the USC spouse, the immigration officer had no problems approving the I-130. The clients were very well prepared. The only other issue was, did he need a waiver since our client had a fake passport when he came to the United States. Attorney Lorenzon successfully argued that he did not since he was coming to the United States to seek asylum and did whatever he could. He asked for asylum when he arrived. The application for adjustment of status was approved without a waiver. Our client is now a lawful permanent resident after waiting almost twenty years! Attorney Jason Lorenzon oversaw this case. When our client hired Margaret Wong & Associates, she had a final order of removal. Her case had been consolidated with her father’s case and her asylum application was denied. Our client is a citizen of China who came to the U.S. when she was a minor, had fake documents provided by a snakehead, and was detained upon entry to the United States. At the time she hired our firm, she was married to a lawful permanent resident. After speaking with her, we learned that she started practicing Falun Gong after her asylum case had been denied. We filed a motion to reopen arguing that country conditions had changed with respect to Falun Gong practitioners in China since the time of her asylum hearing. The Board of Immigration Appeals disagreed and denied the motion. We appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the 11th Circuit agreed and found that the case must be reopened. Ultimately the case was remanded to the Immigration Court. After the case was remanded by the 11th Circuit, our client’s husband became a United States citizen. Since our client was an arriving alien, we filed an I-130 and adjustment of status application concurrently with USCIS. Her case was scheduled for an interview in New Mexico earlier this year. At the interview, we were able to successfully argue that although our client had fake documents at her entry, she did not need a waiver because she was a minor and did not actually present the documents to a U.S. immigration official to gain admission. In October 2010, USCIS granted adjustment of status. We were then able to get her removal proceedings terminated. This case shows the importance of pursuing multiple ways of obtaining permanent resident status at the same time. This was a complex case where we were able to help our client realize her dream of remaining in the United States with her husband. Scott Bratton handled the case. Our client’s case was consolidated with the cases of his parents and siblings. Their asylum case was denied by an Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals. However, voluntary departure was granted. We were hired to file a petition for review with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. We filed the petition along with a stay of voluntary departure to avoid a potential 10-year bar for overstaying voluntary departure. The motion for stay was granted. While the petition was pending, all of the family members departed for Canada except one as they acquired lawful status there. He stayed in the United States and married a United States citizen. We helped them file an I-130 for him. While the I-130 was pending, we moved to reopen the case with the BIA. The motion was granted over DHS objection. We were then able to get removal proceedings terminated. In November 2010, our client adjusted status with USCIS. Scott Bratton handled the case. Our client hired us to do his 6th Circuit case after his BIA appeal of his asylum case was denied. While the 6th Circuit case was pending, our client filed a timely motion to reopen on the basis that he would be eligible to adjust status upon approval of an I-130 petition filed on his behalf. We also argued that he was covered under INA 245(i) on the basis of a prior petition. The motion to reopen was granted by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Scott Bratton handled the case. Our client came to us after he discovered he had a removal order from several years ago. He had appeared at his asylum interview with USCIS but was not aware that he had been placed in deportation proceedings since he had moved. Therefore, he did not appear for his deportation case and was ordered deported. He hired us to reopen his case. We filed a motion to reopen with the Immigration Court in Atlanta in October 2010. Less than one month later, over ICE’s objections, the case was reopened. Scott Bratton handled the case. Our client is a citizen on Mauritania. He came to the United States and applied for asylum without the assistance of an attorney. His application was referred to the Immigration Court and he came to our office. We helped gather documents and represented him at the asylum hearing. There were many issues in the case including: (1) whether the asylum application was filed within one year of arrival to the United States; (2) whether he was firmly resettled after spending several years in a refugee camp; (3) whether he established past persecution; and (4) whether there was a fundamental change in circumstances in Mauritania. Credibility was also an issue as DHS sought to introduce a summary of his testimony at the Asylum Office that was allegedly inconsistent with his testimony at the hearing. We objected to this and asked the Judge to give it little or no weight and she agreed with us on this. After hearing the evidence, the Judge stated she wanted to issue a written decision due to the complex issues involved in the case. At the end of October, we received a written decision granting asylum. This was a huge victory. Scott Bratton handled the case.
We helped our client file applications for Asylum and Withholding of Removal. Although both the Immigration Court and Board of Immigration Appeals denied these applications for relief, we have not given up and have appealed his case to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. While this appeal was pending, we filed an application to renew his work authorization. USCIS erroneously denied this work authorization because of the mistaken belief that his asylum application was no longer pending. We reapplied for the work authorization citing applicable sections of the Code of Federal Regulations and providing evidence that his application is currently pending before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and got USCIS to grant our client’s work authorization for another year.” ZEITUNI ONYANGO'S CASE- President Barack Obama's Aunt Granted Asylum Margaret Wong & Associates started representing Zeituni Onyango since it was revealed that she was in the United States illegally during the last Presidential election. At the time, she had a removal order from years ago. She had been denied asylum by an Immigration Judge. Our office prepared a motion to reopen her removal order to allow her to apply for asylum. The motion involved extensive research and set forth detailed reasons why reopening was warranted and also addressed several serious problems with her prior hearing. The Immigration Judge granted the motion to reopen. This allowed Ms. Onyango to file a new application for asylum. The hearing was set for February 4, 2010. We assembled several hundred pages of exhibits and prepared to present the best asylum case possible. The Department of Homeland Security vigorously presented its position that Ms. Onyango was not entitled to asylum. The hearing on the application took most of the day. The Immigration Judge then requested that each side submit closing briefs addressing their position. Both parties submitted very thorough briefs setting forth its position. Upon consideration of the briefs and evidence, the Immigration Judge issued a nearly 30-page opinion granting Ms. Onyango asylum in May 2010. She has already received her employment authorization and will be eligible to apply for her green card in May 2011. This was an extremely hard fought case that resulted in Ms. Onyango being able to legally remain in the United States. Scott Bratton was lead counsel in the case. Margaret Wong was also attorney of record and worked on all aspects of the case including the hearings. Our client is applying for asylum. However, his work authorization was denied. The Court advised that it was denied because the clock stopped when he failed to attend his asylum interview. We sent a letter to the Court stating that although he did not attend the interview (which would permanently preclude employment authorization), we filed a new I-589 and that a new clock should have started. Since it was now well over 150 days, our client was eligible for a work permit. Upon consideration of our argument, the clock was fixed and our client will get his work authorization. Scott Bratton handled the case. Our client came to us after her asylum application was denied. She is a citizen of China. Our client is also married to a United States citizen and has two children. However, she is not eligible to adjust status. When we took over the case after she was in removal proceedings. We applied for asylum and cancellation of removal with the Immigration Court. She was eligible for cancellation of removal because she had been in the United States over 10 years. We assisted our client in obtaining a substantial amount of supporting documentation to submit to the Court. After a nearly four hour hearing, the Immigration Judge in Kansas City granted our client cancellation of removal. She can remain in the United States with her family as a lawful permanent resident. Scott Bratton handled the case. Our client is a citizen of Romania. He applied for asylum in the early 1990s. The case was pending over 10 years and was then referred to the Immigration Judge. Our office renewed his asylum application. At his hearing, the Immigration Judge found that our client was credible. He did not address past persecution based on a finding that there had been a fundamental change of circumstances in Romania. We appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board agreed with our position that there had not been a fundamental change in circumstances. The case was remanded to the Judge for further proceedings. At that point, the only issue left was whether Respondent established past persecution since it had never been addressed. We filed a detailed brief addressing the issue. In July 2010, the Immigration Judge issued a written decision granting asylum to our client. Scott Bratton represented our client. We represented a client who was here on a valid B-2 visa. We filed for asylum while our client was still in B-2 status although his B-2 status expired before the asylum case was adjudicated. While asylum was pending, we applied for adjustment of status (green card) based on an approved I-140 (Immigrant Work visa). The adjustment application was filed prior to the time the asylum case was referred to the Immigration Judge. In proceedings, we renewed the adjustment of status application and argued that our client was eligible for adjustment of status because his failure to maintain status was due to technical reasons out of his control since his asylum adjudication was not completed within a timely fashion and he applied for adjustment while it was pending. The Immigration Judge agreed with our argument and granted adjustment of status in October 2008. Our attorney Scott Bratton handled the case. Our clients hired us after his asylum application was referred to the Immigration Court by the asylum Office. Our clients are citizens of Ukraine and Jewish although they do not practice any religion. We prepared a new I-589 and submitted additional supporting documents. Our clients claimed that they had been persecuted in the past and that they face future persecution. The asylum hearing before the Immigration Court was conducted over 2 days and consisted of almost 11 hours of testimony. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Judge agreed with our position and found that our clients had been persecuted because they were Jewish at the hands of people the Ukrainian government was unwilling and/or unable to control, that they faced future persecution, and that there had not been a fundamental change in circumstances such that their fear was not longer well-founded. As a result, the court granted asylum. Our client hired us after he had been placed in removal proceedings. He is a citizen of Azerbaijan. We filed an I-589 with the Court alleging that he had been subject to past persecution based on his family's political affiliation. We also alleged that our client faces future persecution. After a 5 hour hearing on the case, the Immigration Judge granted withholding of removal. Our client applied for asylum with the asylum office based on her prior forced abortion in China. She was filing her application more than one year after her admission to the United States. However, we made a legal and factual argument with respect to the one year issue. The Asylum Office did not agree with us and referred the case to the Immigration Court. We presented our claim to the Judge in New York. After a hearing on the case, the Immigration Judge granted asylum. Scott Bratton handled the case. Our client from China was granted conditional asylum by the Immigration Judge in August 2002 because of the persecution she encountered for violating the family planning policies in China. At the time she was granted asylum only 1,000 persons could be granted asylum pursuant to a persecution claim based on resistance to coercive population controls in a given year. Six years passed, and she never received a final grant of asylum. She came to our firm to help her remove her conditional status in 2008, and we helped her to get the conditions removed in a month. Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm. Our client from China was granted conditional asylum by the Immigration Judge in October 2001 because of the persecution he encountered for violating the family planning policies in China. In October 2007, our client retained our firm to help him obtain a final grant of asylum. Six years had passed, and he never received any notice from the Court. We helped push for the conditional status to be removed, and he was granted asylum in August 2008. Our client had also filed I-730 Petitions by himself to bring his wife and children to the United States from China, but the petitions were all denied in May 2007 because he only had a conditional grant of asylum. We filed motions to reopen nunc pro tunc the I-730 Petitions after we helped him obtain the final grant of asylum. All I-730 Petitions were approved. His family was scheduled for their interview in China, but the interviewing officer postponed the interview because he wanted to see the original marriage certificate. Our client turned in the original marriage certificate with his asylum application in October 2001 to the Court. We filed for a request for original documents and were able to retain the original document. Now, our client is waiting for a final decision from the consulate for his family's case. Our firm also filed our client's green card application which was approved. Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm with the assistance of Jian Tang and Annie Zheng. Our client was denied asylum on the ground that he was a persecutor of others. This was the primary ground for denial although the IJ expressed concern about our client's credibility. We were hired to file a motion to reopen. In the motion, we argued that an intervening Supreme Court case addressing the persecutor bar was a basis to reopen the case. Under a 2009 Supreme Court case, the persecutor bar applies only if the actions were voluntary. We argued that our client's actions were under duress and that he is not subject to the persecutor bar. We also argued that the judge's prior decision would have been different had it been analyzed under a correct legal standard. In December 2009, the Board reopened the case sua sponte. The Board agreed with our arguments that the Supreme Court case was a sufficient ground to reopen the case to allow us to contest the asylum denial. Our client will now be given an opportunity to establish that his actions were under duress and that he is entitled to asylum. Scott Bratton handled the motion to reopen. A Chinese client was unable to obtain his final grant for over 7 years. We got him his final grant 1 week after he retained us. Then we filed I-730 for his wife and daughter for derivative asylee status and got approval notice in less than 3 months. Once again, Margaret W. Wong & Assoc. Co., LPA proved its power in complicated immigration law practice. A client from China was issued a conditional grant of asylum based on his fear of returning to China due to the violation of the family planning laws. The grant of asylum was only conditional because of the Immigration laws that existed during the time which only permitted 1,000 people to be granted asylum based on that particular claim. The judge issued a conditional grant of asylum in May 2002. The client never received a final grant of asylum for more than 7 years and retained our firm to help lift the conditions. Our firm was retained in August 2009, and we helped our client obtain a final grant three months later in October 2009. Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm. We applied asylum on behalf of a victim of family planning policy in March, 2009. Client had been in the U.S. for over 1 year prior to filing, which already passed the 1 year time zone for filing asylum. We never gave up hope and still worked very hard for her case. We helped client to get her work permit within 1 month. Now we continue working on her case with great effort for final victory. A Chinese professor came to the U.S. in 2008. After careful consideration he chose us to represent him for his political asylum. He made the right decision. The professor was well known and had lots of influence in China, so when he decided to apply asylum 5 months after he came to the U.S., it was extremely difficult for him to obtain supporting documents from China. Our attorney and assistant made great effort for his case, including helping him with the translation of all documentation and ensuring high quality of his case. We filed the application in March, 2009. Our attorney prepped him twice in length, and attended the interview with him in August. But the interview did not go well due to time limit, which would result in a denial to professor's case. We were able to gather very important information and put everything together within 2 days. Our attorney also wrote a strong and detailed argument. After we submitted our "remedy packet" via Fedex Overnight to asylum office miracle happened. Our hard work was rewarded with an approval notice 2 weeks later. No need to say, the client was wild with joy and very thankful to us. Our senior attorney Scott Bratton handled the case. Jian assisted from the beginning to the end. Our client hired us to prepare her asylum case. After an interview on her asylum application in San Francisco, California, the application was granted. This was a very difficult case as there was no past persecution and we were applying solely on a basis of a well-founded fear. However, we submitted a great deal of research and documentation regarding her case, including a detailed legal brief. After one year, she applied for her lawful permanent resident status. We are happy to report that her green card application was approved in September 2009. Scott Bratton handled the case. Our client came to us after coming to the United States last year to conduct research on behalf of the Chinese Government. He was a professor of religious studies. After our client came to the United States, he learned more about the Chinese Government and decided he could no longer be a member of the Communist Party. He only joined the party due for his career advancement. He officially renounced his membership in the Communist Party and spoke out against the Chinese Government in the media and at rallies to support Falun Gong. His activities are well chronicled on many different internet sites. He is a prominent critic of the Chinese Government. Our office helped him apply for asylum. Scott Bratton and Jian Tang submitted a great deal of material in support of the case. Mr. Bratton attended the asylum interview and wrote a detailed brief subsequent to the interview. In August 2009, the asylum application was granted. H.W., a native of China hired our office for his asylum case in 2007. He came to the US in 1997 illegally. Our office filed an asylum application in 2007 based on changed circumstances; his second child was born in 2007. Our client claimed that he was threatened by the Chinese government due to his involvement on the family planning issues and that he would be persecuted because he violated China's one child policy giving birth to his second child in USA. However, the asylum office referred the case to the Immigration Judge because our client failed to file the application within a reasonable time period. Ultimately, the case was presented before the Immigration Court in 2009 by Mr. Scott Bratton on behalf of Margaret Wong & Associates and the asylum was granted. A client from China entered the United States through a ship arranged by Chinese smugglers. She entered illegally through Miami, without any inspection, in 2002. Her parents were labeled as anti-communist before, and she too was involved as she was a practicing Christian. However, she never applied for asylum within one year of her entry. She just saw too many denials from friends with similar cases, and even though she had fear, she did not want to take a chance as she felt it wasn't the strongest case. She remained in the United States and worked hard to make ends meet, waiting tables and doing random jobs. She eventually got married (to someone who also did not have status) and through that marriage, her daughter was born. Our client's dad was then diagnosed with a tumor and as he was aging, he wanted to see his granddaughter. Accompanied by our client's sister-in-law, who was already a lawful permanent resident of the United States, our client's baby daughter went to China to visit her grandparents. At one point, she had to take a typical vaccine at a clinic. The baby daughter then had a high fever and had to be taken to the hospital. It was discovered that her blood cells were abnormal and a blood test was necessary. The hospital would not do it until a large monetary bribe was given. Only upon payment did they perform the blood test, and the daughter was diagnosed with leukemia. The hospital would not do anything thereafter, leaving the child and her grandparents in the hospital hallway, even verbally mocking them due their anti-communist ties. Our client meanwhile had joined the Chinese Democratic Party, participating in rallies as her belief and hatred just strengthened after what has happened. Our client arranged for her sister-in-law to again pick up her baby daughter in China at a much earlier time to hopefully salvage her medical condition. She was taken to one of the better hospitals in the United States for a couple of months, however, due to the delay and lack of proper medication at the early stages of the leukemia diagnosis in China, the baby died. It was very painful for our client. She took it upon herself to be more active with the Chinese Democratic Party, writing several articles recently. Some threats back home transpired, with the government looking for her, upon her publication of the articles. She consulted with our firm and we filed for her asylum. Even though the asylum was filed seven years from her entry, we argued exceptional circumstances on her case - death of daughter, participation in CDP, articles written, threats against her - all occurring within the past few months. We then accompanied the client at her asylum interview and presented more documents, and concluded with our closing arguments addressing all issues. Our client won asylum. Attorney JP Sarmiento handled her case. A client from China was issued a conditional grant of asylum based on her fear of returning to China due to the violation of the family planning laws. The grant of asylum was only conditional because of the Immigration laws that existed during the time which only permitted 1,000 people to be granted asylum based on that particular claim. The judge issued a conditional grant of asylum in October 2000. The client never received a final grant of asylum and retained our firm to help lift the conditions. Our firm was retained in September 2008, and we helped our client obtain a final grant of asylum in December 2008. Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm. Our client hired us after he was detained in York, Pennsylvania. We were able to get him released on bond and filed for asylum. His claim was based on Falun Gong. He started practicing Falun Gong in China about two months before he came to the United States. Police came to his house looking for him when he was not home and confiscated Falun Gong books and materials. He then fled from China. We submitted a large amount of evidence in support of the claim, including numerous documents from China. After a hearing in Newark, New Jersey in April 2009, the Immigration Judge granted asylum. Scott Bratton handled the case. Our client hired us after he had been in the United States for long period of time. He never filed for asylum or any other benefit. In removal proceedings, we filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Our client claim he had problems in China when he tried to prevent family planning officials from taking his cousin for an abortion. He was detained for a couple days and beaten. He also claimed that he would be harmed if he went back to China because he and his wife recently had their second child. We submitted evidence that Chinese officials knew of the pregnancy and considered this a violation of the family planning policy. We argued that he would face a significant fine and be sterilized upon his return to China. After a hearing in New York, the Immigration Court granted asylum and withholding of removal in April 2009. The asylum grant was based on our client's violation of the family planning law in the United States and his well-founded fear that he would be sterilized upon his return to China. Scott Bratton handled the case. Our client retained our office after his asylum case was referred to the Immigration Court by the asylum office. He was a citizen of Ukraine and alleged that he had suffered persecution many years ago on account of being Jewish. We submitted numerous documents supporting the case. After a long hearing on the asylum case, the Immigration Judge took the case under advisement. In March 2009, the Immigration Judge issued a detailed decision granting asylum. Scott Bratton handled the case. Our client hired us after he was detained in Texas shortly after coming to the United States. Our client was able to get bond. He was from China and wanted to apply for asylum with the Immigration Court. We filed the asylum application. His claim was based on his participation in an underground church in China. Although he was not persecuted in the past, he feared he would be persecuted in the future. After a three hour hearing on the asylum claim, the Immigration Judge requested briefs on credibility and whether our client had a well-founded fear of persecution. We filed a very detailed brief discussing the evidence and our position that asylum was warranted. In February 2009, the Immigration Judge issued a decision granting asylum. Scott Bratton handled the case. A client from China was granted asylee status in 2002. He filed an I-730 Refugee/Asylee Relative Petitions for his three children and his wife who were in China so that they could follow to join the client in the United States. The petitions were approved in 2003. His wife and children appeared for an interview at the U.S. Consulate in China in 2004. After the interview, Immigration moved to reopen the cases based on evidence obtained during the interview abroad. Immigration questioned the parentage of the children and the authenticity of the marriage. Immigration questioned whether the client had registered his marriage with the proper civil authorities in China because of questions of authenticity of the marriage certificate. The client hired our firm to handle the case in 2007. He decided to only pursue the petitions for his wife and daughter because one daughter passed away and the other married a citizen of China. We requested a DNA parentage test for our client to prove that our client was the biological father of his daughter. We also submitted evidence that the client's marriage was bona fide including documentation that the client financially supported his family in China while he was in the United States. We provided an explanation for the discrepancies that appeared on the client's marriage certificate. Immigration approved both petitions for the wife and daughter. Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm with the assistance of Arty Wynieski. Our clients from Ukraine filed for asylum in 1993 based on problems they encountered because they were Jewish. They hired our firm to represent them at their interview. Our attorney, Scott Bratton, attended the interview with our clients. In October 2008, we received a decision from the asylum office granting asylum. We proudly helped and Ethiopian family seek for Asylum in this country. He and his wife lived in Ethiopia until July 2006, where he worked as an accountant and auditor. However his history as a member of the opposing party made him a target and victim of Government violations of human rights. It started when he took part in students' protests against government abuses, and continued when he was a professional, for his membership to the opposing party and his political opinions against the Government. The situation changed from constant harassment to actual persecution, and while he escaped and arbitrary detention, he had to turn himself in because the police had arrested his father as a way of putting pressure on him. He was released later due only to his friendship to a very powerful family, related to the governing party. He and his wife tried to find a way out of the country. He was able to go back to work, where he had been constantly harassed for his political opinions, and waited for things to calm down. He applied for international scholarships twice and finally was able to come to USA with a J-1 visa with his wife, where he studied and worked. In March 2007 their son was born as a US citizen. Five months later his wife and son traveled to Ethiopia, since her father was very ill and she wanted the family to meet her son. They had been told things were calm and probably traveling there would not be a problem. However upon arriving to Ethiopia, mother and son were arrested and she was harassed constantly, and later detained. She was released thanks to the same friends that had helped the husband years before; and they helped her leave the country, in a very risky way though. She was forced to leave her son behind because she could not afford to put him in such danger. She knew the baby would be fine with her family for a while as he was an American citizen, and a very close friend would be traveling safely to USA in a few months. Back in USA they prepared all documentation and were able to bring the baby back. With all this sad circumstances, and the evidence and research that our staff put together, in February 2008 we filed an Asylum petition for both husband and wife. We prepared them for the interview, which was scheduled in only three months, due to the undeniable evidence submitted. In August 2008 their Asylum was approved, and we were all very happy for them. They will be able to file for a green card a year after their asylum, and we will be there to help them again. A client from China was issued a conditional grant of asylum based on violation of the family planning laws in China in May 2001. He filed an I-730 Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition and requested derivative asylee status for his wife, who was in China so that she could come to join him in the United States. The Petition was approved in August 2001, and the wife was scheduled for an interview in China. The U.S. Embassy in Beijing notified our client that his wife was scheduled for an interview but did not appear. Therefore, the case was administratively closed. Our client filed a second I-730 Petition in January 2004 which was denied. Our client hired us to reopen the case, and we filed a motion to reopen to demonstrate that his wife did not appear at the interview because she had never received the interview notice. We explained how the postal service in the wife's village was rudimentary and inadequate, and therefore, the wife never received her hearing notice. The case was reopened, and the I-730 was approved. Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm. We assisted our client from Iran in applying for asylum. She had been in the United States for more than one year but had maintained status. The basis of the claim was the fear of harm based on her religion. After an interview, the asylum application was granted. Scott Bratton handled the case. We applied for cancellation of removal for our clients after they were placed in removal proceedings in Newark, New Jersey. We argued that their USC child would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if his parents were deported because of his medical condition. After a hearing on the case in August 2008, the Immigration Judge granted cancellation of removal. This will allow the family to remain in the United States. Our clients are permanent residents as a result of the court's ruling and their child will be able to continue his medical care. Scott Bratton handled the case. This married couple came from Ecuador by the end of 1995. They crossed the border and entered USA without inspection (illegally). They settled in New York for some time and started working to support themselves, and later to support their two children, both born in USA. They came to our office seeking legal advice in mid 2007, since they had been put in removal proceedings. We were touched by their case because we soon discovered that the youngest son had multiple disabilities which required constant specialized care and therapy. The family actually had to pay a nurse and physical therapist to work with their son for several hours every day. He had to be monitored at all times, and the medical expenses were too high, still the parents could not lose hope and had to work hard to be able to support the family and keep the child alive. We started an asylum case in 2007 and also requested a work authorization, since they had been working illegally. We worked with previous documentation that our clients brought to us regarding conditions in their country. However we decided to move away from this asylum case, because they were eligible for a ten-year cancellation of removal and there was enough evidence of the hardship their children would go through if they had to leave USA. Especially the youngest one, since Ecuador is a third world country that does not have resources to help parents take care of their children in such an extreme situation. On the other hand, even working as hard as in USA, the low incomes in Ecuador would not allow them to pay for the most basic medical expenses their child needed so badly. We worked constantly for this case. We filed for their cancellation and I-485, and they were scheduled for fingerprints on several occasions. They had a hearing in December 2007, and their last hearing was scheduled for August 2008. When our attorney, Scott Bratton, appeared in Court with them, he was relieved and satisfied to see that the Judge shared our concern for the risk and extreme hardship that the little boy would go through if the family had to go back to Ecuador, where his life would be at severe risk. The cancellation of removal proceedings and adjustment of status were granted for both parents and now they are eligible for their green cards, which we are requesting for them. These concerned parents will now be able to dedicate all their efforts to their children's health and welfare. Our client from Lebanon hired our office to represent him before Immigration Court. He had entered USA without permission in 2001 and was placed in deportation proceedings. Our office filed an asylum application before the court in 2002 claiming that our client had suffered past prosecution from the Syrian forces that at the time had occupied Lebanon. We submitted evidence that he and his family members were beaten and tortured by Syrian forces. We helped our client to obtain affidavits from family members who were tortured and suffered from the civil war. We also conducted an extensive research on factual background information for Lebanon in order to convince the court that our client had a well-based fear of future prosecution because of the current situation in Lebanon. In 2004 the Immigration Court approved the asylum case. In 2005 our office filed his Green Card application which was approved in June 2008. Our client, a citizen from Armenia came to USA in 2007 with a visitor visa. He retained our office to help him apply for political asylum. He had served as senior inspector police in the Department of Republic of Armenia. Our office filed application for asylum within 1 year of his entry. We prepared the case very well and presented before the immigration officer the evidence to show that our client was persecuted, tortured and abused in his home country, because he publicly went against corruption and publicly refused to persecute peaceful demonstrators who protested against the government. His case was approved in 2008 shortly after the interview. Our client will be eligible to file his Green Card application within one year of approval. Scott Bratton handled this case for Margaret Wong and Associates, with help from Jilan Zhang. Our client came to our office when she fell out of status for a technical reason. We were able to successfully get her back in status. However, while we were working on her status issues, we also applied for asylum. She feared persecution in Pakistan due to her marriage to a man of a different religion. Her asylum case was approved. We later filed her application for permanent residence. In June 2008, her green card application was approved. Scott Bratton handled the case. Our client applied for asylum in New York after being placed in removal proceedings. We filed an asylum application and argued that our client feared returning to China because she had two children born in the United States. We argued that her fear of harm was greater because her husband was granted asylum eight years ago based on opposition to the family planning policy. Although they did not know each other at the time, we argued that his prior problems with the Chinese Government made our client at greater risk of harm. After considering the evidence and testimony, the Immigration Judge granted asylum in June 2008. Scott Bratton handled the case. Our client applied for asylum in Chicago approximately eight years ago. His case was denied by the Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals. We then took over the case and appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. After reviewing the briefs and hearing arguments, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the Board issued an unreasoned decision and did not properly consider the evidence. The case was sent back for a new hearing before a different judge. In the meantime, our client's circumstances changed and the Government argued that this change meant that our client did not have a reasonable fear of returning to his country (Kazakhstan). We acknowledged a change but argued that his fear was still reasonable. The Immigration Judge concluded that asylum was not warranted. However, on appeal the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed that asylum was warranted. In June 2008, asylum was granted. After eight years, our client's battle to win asylum was finally over. He was granted asylum. The Seventh Circuit decision can be found at (WILL ADD GUCHSHENKOV CITE FROM OUR WEB). This case is cited often when discussing review of Board decisions on asylum issues. Scott Bratton handled the case. A citizen from China entered without inspection and applied for asylum based on being a member of Falun Gong spiritual group, which is under government persecution in China for their beliefs and practices. He had to postpone his asylum interview because of a medical emergency. He never received a new interview notice in the mail. His case was then referred to the Immigration Judge. He had a new hearing scheduled, but never received a Notice to Appear or a hearing notice, therefore he did not show up again and was ordered to be removed in absentia for failure to appear at his hearing. He was later picked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and detained. At this point, he hired our firm to reopen his case. Our firm filed a motion to reopen in absentia for failure to receive both the Notice to Appear and a hearing notice at his current address. The case was reopened, and the client is now eligible to apply for asylum through the court. Scott Bratton and Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm. Our client and his family, Lebanese citizens of Druze religion, came in the US in October 2006 with B1 visitor visa. He hired our office in May 2007 and we immediately filed I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal with CIS based on his fear of prosecution because of political opinion and membership in a particular social group. While he lived in Lebanon he and his family suffered several times at the hands of Hezbollah simply because his brother was a US Citizen and in the army. They had to leave Lebanon and lived in Dubai for a couple of years before coming to US. They were still threatened to leave Dubai because they were considered unwelcomed in an Islamic country and being harassed by people related to the Hezbollah group there. Mr. Bratton appeared with our client at the asylum interview before CIS in June 2007 and argued that we had enough evidence showing that our client established the standards for a grant of asylum because of past prosecution and well -based fear of future prosecution by Hezbollah if he is forced to return to Lebanon. We submitted a considerable volume of research that showed that Hezbollah is a powerful organization in Lebanon, one that has been banned by the US as terrorist group and known for its hostilities against Americans. This case was approved as soon as Mr. Bratton submitted another summary brief on the case after the interview and more evidence documenting the vigorous anti-American campaign of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Kristie Lumakin and Fabiola Cini also helped with the case. Our client, a Chinese Indonesian, entered the US in 2002 as visitor. She reentered in 2003 and or office filed her asylum application in 2004. She filed application for asylum based on the fear of persecution because of being a Chinese Christian. Also our client was forced to have an abortion because the government of Indonesia does not allow unmarried 20 years old Chinese women to have children and at the time she was expecting a child she was under 20 and single. The case was originally denied by the immigration officer and referred to the Immigration Court. During the removal proceedings our office prepared thoroughly for the case conducting extensive research on the precedents in similar cases and background materials showing that Chinese Indonesians face discrimination and widespread violence in Indonesia. The Immigration Judge found that our client suffered past prosecution and represented enough evidence that she had a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group and therefore the asylum was granted in 2008. Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong & Assoc. Also Fabiola Cini helped in this case. Our client hired our firm to apply for asylum. She was Chinese and a citizen of Indonesia. We applied for asylum with the Immigration Court. We assisted our client in obtaining numerous documents to corroborate her case. We argued that she was persecuted in the past due to numerous instances of sexual harassment and robbery. We also argued that there had not been a fundamental change in circumstances in Indonesia since the time of the persecution. The Immigration Judge agreed with our arguments and granted asylum. Scott Bratton handled the case. Our office was contacted by an individual who was attempting to legalize his status in the United States. He and his mother were denied asylum previously by the Asylum Office. He was a derivative on that application and was now over 21. He was not in removal proceedings. Based on the information we received and his fear of returning to Belarus, we advised him to file his own application for asylum with the Asylum Office. He was interviewed in connection with his application. In April 2008, his asylum application was approved. Scott Bratton handled the case. Our client came to our office because she was interested in pursuing an asylum claim. Her claim was based on her claim of past persecution under China's family planning policy and her fear of future persecution for exposing a corrupt Government official. We filed her claim with CIS. She was interviewed by the Asylum Office in Chicago, Illinois. Within four months of filing the application, the case was approved. Kristie Lumakin and Scott Bratton handled the case. Mr. Bratton attended the interview. Our client is a citizen of Lebanon. After coming to the United States, he hired us to file asylum. We prepared the application and filed it with CIS. We also spent a great deal of time preparing our client for the interview. We attended the asylum interview with our client in Houston, Texas. In August 2007, our client's asylum application was approved. Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong & Associates. Kristie Lumakin assisted with the preparation of the asylum application. A Serbian-Ukrainian client seeking asylum on the basis of religious persecution was denied and put in the removal proceedings on the grounds that there was not enough evidence to support her claims of imminent torture upon her return to her home country. However, the decision only came after the Immigration Judge refused to consider key evidence on behalf of our client. We immediately appealed the decision, arguing that the testimony of the respondent was credible, and that the Immigration Judge erred in her decision and abused her discretion, and ultimately won asylum for our client. Our client entered the country in January 1994 and after more than 13 years waiting and painfully going through the surrounding circumstances, her I-485 (Application for green card) based on asylum was approved in 2007. A Chinese family living in New York was granted asylum and we filed I-485 application for permanent residence for all three family members. It only took USCIS Nebraska Service Center 6 months to process and approve all three cases. No request for evidence was issued and they received their green cards in July of 2007. Our client retained Margaret Wong & Associates after he had a final order of removal. Our client had two United States citizen children. We filed a motion to reopen arguing that our client should be permitted to apply for asylum on the basis that there had been a change in circumstances in China. We relied on evidence that had recently come to light that the Chinese Government, especially in Fujian Province, punished those who had two children in violation of the family planning laws, even where the violation occurred in the United States. After consideration of our motion, an Immigration Judge in New York reopened the case to allow our client to apply for asylum based on the new circumstances. Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong and Associates. Our client retained us in 2005 after he received an asylum revocation notice which threatened to end his asylum status and end his employment authorization card that came with his asylum claim. Our attorney attended this asylum revocation hearing in Chicago. Officer asked a lot of questions regarding other names used by our client and his family and officer’s focus was on client’s entry to the US and whether client was who he claimed to be. Our attorney gave officer a number of documents to establish our client’s identity and his son's identity. At the hearing, we were told that a decision would be forthcoming. In January 2007 we received Notice of Continuation of Asylum Status from Chicago, notifying us and our client that he remains in asylum status because CIS has decided not to terminate our client’s asylum status due to lack of sufficient evidence to meet the evidentiary standard required. This also preserved his spouse and children’s asylum status. Scott Bratton handled this case for Margaret Wong & Associates. The Board of Immigration Appeals remanded our client’s case for a new asylum hearing. On appeal, we argued that the Board could not meaningfully review the case because the hearing transcript was missing several key portions of testimony. We argued that it would be a due process violation to rule on the appeal without a full record. The Board agreed that it could conduct any meaningful review without a complete transcript. Thus, the case was sent back to the Judge for further proceedings. Scott Bratton handled the BIA appeal for Margaret Wong & Associates Co, LPA. ur client was picked up by the Department of Homeland Security while he was on the way to our office to apply for asylum. He was placed in removal proceedings because his visa had expired. Our office filed an application for asylum on our client’s behalf based on the coercive family planning laws in China. After hearing detailed testimony at the asylum hearing and considering the substantial amount of evidence we presented, the Immigration Judge granted asylum. This will allow our client to bring his wife and child to the United States from China. Unfortunately, they had been unable to obtain a visa to come to the United States. Due to the grant of asylum, the family will be reunited. Scott Bratton, Michael Fungsang, and Jilan Zhang worked on the case. When our client retained Margaret Wong & Associates, his asylum case had been denied by the asylum office. We assisted our client in obtaining additional evidence from the Ivory Coast to support his claim. After a long hearing on his asylum claim, the Immigration Judge granted our request for asylum. Our client will be able to apply for his green card in one year from the date his case was granted. Scott Bratton represented our client. When our client came to our office, her asylum case had been denied by the asylum office. We assisted her in obtaining additional documentation, including evidence from her home country of Mauritania. After an extensive hearing on the case, the Immigration Judge granted asylum. Scott Bratton handled the case for our firm When our clients retained Margaret Wong & Associates, they had been denied asylum by the Asylum Office. We were hired to pursue their claim with the Immigration Judge. There were several hearings in the case due to the complexity of the legal issues involved. At the final hearing in September 2006, the Immigration Judge granted asylum based on China’s coercive family planning policies. Our clients will be able to remain in the United States and can apply for permanent residence in one year. Scott Bratton represented our client in the court proceedings. Arty Wynieski also worked on the case. When our client retained our firm, her application for adjustment of status had been pending for several years. This was based on asylum. Her adjustment of status case had not yet been approved despite the fact that her mother’s case and her brother’s case were approved. Our office filed a Complaint with the United States District Court seeking to compel them to adjudicate the adjustment of status application. Within 90 days of filing the Complaint, the adjustment of status application was approved. Scott Bratton handled the case. Our client is a native and citizen of Ghana. He filed his asylum application soon after he came to the United States, which was over ten years ago. When he finally received notice that his asylum interview was scheduled for May 2005, he hired our office to represent him at his interview in Chicago, Illinois. We assisted our client in preparing for the interview and Scott Bratton represented our client at his asylum interview. Subsequent to the interview, our office submitted additional evidence in support of his asylum claim along with a brief detailing why our client was entitled to asylum despite the change in Government in Ghana. In August 2005, the Asylum Office granted our client asylum. Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong and Associates. Our clients applied for withholding of removal before the Immigration Judge (they were ineligible for asylum because they did not file within one year of admission). Our clients feared returning to Ukraine. After hearing the evidence, the Immigration Judge granted withholding of removal finding that both our clients met the standard for withholding of removal. Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong and Associates. In 1996, our client filed an application for asylum with the Asylum Office arguing that he suffered past persecution in Russia because he was Jewish. His application was referred to the Immigration Judge. Our firm was then retained to handle the asylum case in immigration court. After considering the evidence relating to Petitioner's claim, the Immigration Judge granted asylum. Scott Bratton handled the case. Our client retained our firm after his asylum appeal was denied by the Immigration Judge. We appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board denied the appeal and extended voluntary departure for an additional 30 days. Our firm then filed an appeal with the Sixth Circuit along with a motion to stay removal and voluntary departure. During this process, our client married a US citizen and she filed an I-130 on his behalf. While the Sixth Circuit appeal was pending, the I-130 was approved. Additionally, the motion to stay voluntary departure was granted, meaning that our client did not face a 10-year bar to adjustment of status for overstaying his voluntary departure. We then moved to reopen the case with the Board of Immigration Appeals. Our motion was granted and the case is back before the Immigration Judge to allow our client to apply for adjustment of status. Scott Bratton handled this case for our firm. In Alami v. Ashcroft, 112 Fed.Appx. 362, 2004 WL 2491666 (5th Cir. 2004), the United States Court of appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded Alami’s case to the Board for the failure to adequately consider whether Alami established past persecution. Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong & Associates. Our client, who is a citizen of Serbia and Montenegro, filed an application for asylum with the Immigration Judge. Her asylum application was denied and our office filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board remanded the case back to the Immigration Judge due to the Immigration Judge’s failure to properly consider our client’s well-founded fear of persecution claim. At her new hearing on the asylum claim, the Immigration Judge granted asylum. Scott Bratton handled the BIA appeal and remanded asylum claim. Our client retained our office after she had been ordered deported for failing to appear at her hearing. We were able to successfully move to reopen her case and renewed her asylum application that had been referred to the Immigration Judge. The basis of her asylum claim is that she had been forced to undergo female genital mutilation while in her home country. After a hearing on her asylum claim, the Immigration Judge granted asylum. Scott Bratton represented our client in all proceedings. Our client applied for asylum and his case was referred to an Immigration Judge. Our client was ordered deported for failing to appear at his hearing. He argued that he never received any notice he was in proceedings. A Motion to Reopen was denied by the Immigration Judge and the Board. An appeal was taken to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Third Circuit then remanded the case to the Board for reconsideration of the issue. The Board reopened the case and remanded the case to the Immigration Judge. At the time of our client’s next hearing, he was the beneficiary of an approved labor certification and had an I-140 pending. At the hearing, the removal proceedings were terminated to allow our client to apply for adjustment of status before the CIS. Scott Bratton represented our client in this matter. The Immigration Judge granted asylum to a family of four from Georgia who feared returning due to religious reasons. Scott Bratton represented our clients in removal proceedings. Our client, who came to the United States approximately 10 years ago, was placed in removal proceedings after her asylum case was referred to an Immigration Judge. She then came to our office to have us represent her in removal proceedings. Our office filed a labor certification under 245(i) and an I-140, which was approved. We filed her I-485 application before the Immigration Judge and her application for adjustment of status was granted. Her long journey is now over and she is a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Scott Bratton represented our client before the Immigration Court. Our client was pursuing a law degree in an African country that was ruled by a dictatorship. He was arrested in a university student demonstration and severely beaten by government forces for distributing leaflets promoting democratic ideals and basic human rights. He was taken to jail, beaten and left for dead. He was rescued, recovered, and continued to speak out in favor of basic human rights when he was again arrested and beaten by government forces. Finally, to save his life, he fled the country and arrived in the United States in 2001. He realized his dream of being able to stay, work and live in the United States when his application for withholding of removal was granted by an immigration judge. Our client testified in his own behalf and was articulate, intelligent and credible. The client was represented at his hearing by Bob Marek. China Citizen Who Sought United States Asylum From Religious Persecution In China For The Practice Of Falun Gong Our client (Mr. C) had participated as a young adult and demonstrator against the Chinese government in the Tiananmen Square uprising, for which he was beaten. Mr. C sometime later became a follower and practicing member of the religion of Falun Gong. The Chinese government had even arrested him for practicing Falun Gong. Mr. C came to the United States and sought asylum. The United States government challenged the merits of his asylum application and the matter was heard in Immigration Court. The hearing lasted over 4 hours and toward the end of the case, the Immigration Judge asked our client to demonstrate 5 steps of Falun Gong. Mr. C got up from the witness chair, stood in the direction of the Immigration Judge and flawlessly and with precision and perfection demonstrated the 5 steps of Falun Gong. This demonstration persuaded the Immigration Judge to grant Mr. C's asylum application on the basis of Mr. C being a genuine follower and practitioner of Falun Gong. Congratulations on asylum grants in May 2003 and June 2003 to two PRC nationals! A thirty-six-year-old PRC national from Quantzao was granted asylum on June 11, 2003, based on the coercive birth control policies of PRC. A twenty-six-year-old PRC crewman working in Fuchien witnessed a captain smuggling cigarettes and other boxes. IJ granted asylum on May 23, 2003. We offer our warmest congratulations and best wishes to both of these new asylum grantees. |
Additional Languages:
Español -
Français -
Português -
中文 -
한국어 -
Русский -
Tagalog -
Shqip -
Srpski -
Tajik - Bicol - Cebuano - Hindi - Uzbek - Urdu - Punjabi - Hindko - Pashto - Italian
Tajik - Bicol - Cebuano - Hindi - Uzbek - Urdu - Punjabi - Hindko - Pashto - Italian
Margaret Wong and Assoc. Co., LPA charges a fee of $150 for most consultations. These consultations can be either in-person, via email or mail. All telephone consultations require a fee of $150.
