slide
Success Stories
If you need help in any aspect of immigration law, feel free to contact our office. We invite you to view our success stories.
slide
From Our Clients
Please read our compiled reviews from the internet, from Google to AVVO, on what our clients have said about our firm.
slide
Marriage
One of the fastest and most common immigration cases are those based on marriage to a US Citizen.
slide
Family and Relative Immigration
From immigration of children, parents, siblings, to cases involving 245(i), CSPA, and the death of a petitioner, we are here to help.
slide
H-1B
H-1B petitions for employment in specialty occupations, from computer analysts, engineers, nurse managers, accountants, architects, doctors, feel free to contact us.
slide
Asylum
Past persecution or fear of future persecution on account of politics, race, religion, social group, or nationality. Let us guide you in the asylum application process.
Post image for After Joint Motion to Reopen and Terminate, Green Card Approval for Pakistani Clients in Philadelphia Pennsylvania

CASE:  Adjustment of Status / Termination of Proceedings after Joint Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Pakistanis
LOCATION: Philadelphia, PA

Our clients are Pakistani citizens who currently reside in Philadelphia, PA with their U.S. Citizen sons.  Our client entered the United States with valid L-1 and L-2 visas in November 2000.  Later, they were granted withholding of removal in July 2006 by the Philadelphia Immigration Court.  They have remained in the United States thereafter. In November 2013, our clients’ son became a naturalized U.S. citizen. However, for them to get a green card, their case should first be reopened by the Immigration Court for them to apply for adjustment of status either with the Court, or with the CIS should proceedings be terminated after reopening.

In May 2015, our clients contacted our office and sought legal assistance for their immigration matter.  After thorough consultations, our client retained us on May 14, 2015.  Upon retention, we first prepared and filed their U.S. citizen son’s I-130 petitions for them. We filed the I-130 petitions to USCIS on May 20, 2015 and the USCIS approved the I-130s on October 5, 2015. Once the I-130s were approved, we filed Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen for our client to USICE-DHS office in Philadelphia.  Our cover brief explained how they got their withholding of removal status, approval of I-130, and their prima facie eligibility to apply for adjustment of status.

After the long reviewing period, the DHS office in Philadelphia finally agreed to join in Motion to Reopen and an assigned counsel signed on the Motion on April 11, 2016.  Once we received the Joint Motion to Reopen, we filed a Motion to Philadelphia Immigration Court to request reopening of our clients’ cases so that they can apply for adjustment of status. Eventually, on April 28, 2016, the Philadelphia Immigration Court terminated our clients’ removal proceedings.

Once their cases were terminated they retained our office again for their I-485 adjustment of status applications. Our firm prepared and filed the Adjustment of Status Applications and the Employment Authorization Document on June 23, 2016.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time.

Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our client via conference call. On July 25, 2017, our clients were interviewed at the Philadelphia Pennsylvania USCIS.  The interview went well, and on July 31, 2017, their green card applications were approved.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen and Terminate Proceedings Approved for Pakistani on Withholding of Removal in Philadelphia Pennsylvania

CASE:  Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen and Terminate Proceedings
CLIENT: Pakistanis
LOCATION: Philadelphia, PA

Our clients are a Pakistani couple who currently reside in Philadelphia, PA. They were granted withholding of removal years ago.  Our client entered the United States on a valid L-1 and L-2 visa in November 2000.  Later, they were granted withholding of removal in July 2006 by the Philadelphia Immigration Court.  They have remained in the United States thereafter.

In November 2013, our clients’ son became a naturalized U.S. citizen. However, for them to get a green card, their case should first be reopened in the Immigration Court for them to apply for adjustment of status either with the Court, or with the CIS should proceedings be terminated after reopening.

In May 2015, our clients contacted our office and sought legal assistance for their immigration matter. After consultation, our client retained us on May 14, 2015.  Upon retention, we first prepared and filed their U.S. citizen son’s I-130 petitions for them. We filed the I-130 petitions to the USCIS on May 20, 2015 and the USCIS approved the I-130s on October 5, 2015. Once the I-130s were approved, we filed a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen for our client to USICE-DHS office in Philadelphia.  Our cover brief explained how they got their withholding of removal status, approved of I-130, and their prima facie eligibility to apply for adjustment of status.

On April 11, 2016, the DHS office in Philadelphia agreed to join in the Motion to Reopen and Terminate Proceedings. The Joint Motion was then filed to the Philadelphia Immigration Court and upon reopening and termination, their adjustment of status applications can then be filed to the USCIS.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Motion to Reopen and Rescind an In Absentia Order of Removal Based on Exceptional Circumstances Granted for Bahamian Client in Miami Florida

CASE: Motion to Reopen and Rescind an In Absentia Order of Removal Based on Exceptional Circumstances
CLIENT: Bahamian
LOCATION: Miami, Florida

Our client was from the Bahamas and is a lawful permanent resident.  She was placed into removal proceedings due to a criminal conviction which she has tried to vacate for the last couple years. After removal proceedings were initiated, our client attended her master calendar hearings.

However, in July 2015, our client was in a great deal of pain and was admitted to the emergency room for a week.  Our client got very sick, especially on the master calendar hearing date. Eventually, she did not appear before the Court on her master calendar hearing date.   Because of her absence, an order of removal was issued against her. Once she learned about the order of removal, she immediately contacted our office and explained to us that why she was not able to attend the hearing.

Our client contacted and retained our office on August 20, 2015 for the Motion to Reopen and Rescind an in absentia order.  After we analyzed her story and the surrounding circumstances, our office determined that the Immigration Court will likely grant our client’s Motion to Reopen and Rescind an in absentia order based on exceptional circumstances.

In the Motion, we contended that our client could not attend the hearing due to her medical condition and her absence was inevitable due to the medical condition.  Our office included supporting documents such as a doctor’s letter, copy of prescription, and other supporting documents.  Eventually, our office filed the Motion on September 30, 2015 within the statutory time frame.  On November 3, 2015, the Miami Immigration Court granted our client’s Motion and rescinded the order of removal.  Our client’s case is re-opened, and she can now pursue her relief again.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Motion to Reopen and Terminate from BIA after Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen and Terminate with DHS Based on Approved I-130 for Moldovan Client in Philadelphia, PA

CASE: Joint Motion to Reopen and Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition

CLIENT: Moldovan

LOCATION: Philadelphia, PA; Baltimore, MD (DHS)

Our client is from Moldova who came to the U.S. on a J-1 visa in June 2009. She has remained in the United States past her authorized period of stay.  Later, she filed for asylum and withholding of removal in December 2009, but the Immigration Judge at the Baltimore Immigration Court denied all applications for relief.

She filed an appeal with the BIA, but in 2012, the Board affirmed the Immigration Judge’s findings and dismissed the appeal. She then proceeded to appeal her case at the Federal Circuit Court, but was denied.

Our client remained in the United States with the final order of removal.

She married her current U.S. citizen husband in February 2014. After she married her husband, they consulted our firm. They wish to know if she has any viable options for her immigration status.

After careful review, our office determined that we can file a Request to the DHS to join in a Motion to Reopen based on an I-130 approval (if the I-130 petition is approved) and Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum. After consultation, our client retained our office.

Once retained, our office prepared and filed the I-130 petition. The I-130 petition was filed on July 3, 2014. Her I-130 petition was scheduled for an interview, and they appeared at the USCIS Philadelphia USCIS Field Office on February 12, 2015. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our clients as well. The interview went well and the I-130 petition was subsequently approved by the USCIS on February 18. 2015.

Once the I-130 petition was approved, our office prepared and filed a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen and Terminate to the Baltimore DHS office on March 19, 2015. Our office prepared an extensive brief along with multiple supporting documents to request a favorable exercise of DHS’s discretion on this case.

We argued that DHS should consider the following factors as set forth in Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum: (1) whether adjustment of status was available at the prior hearing; (2) whether the alien is statutorily eligible for adjustment of status; and (3) whether the alien merits a favorable exercise of discretion. Bo Cooper, Motions to Reopen for Consideration of Adjustment of Status (May 17, 2001). In considering these factors, as delineated in William J. Howard’s October 24, 2005, Memorandum, “Where a motion to reopen for adjustment of status… is filed on behalf of an alien with substantial equities, no serious criminal or immigration violations, and who is legally eligible to be granted relief except that the motion is beyond the 90-day limitation contained in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23, strongly consider exercising prosecutorial discretion and join in this motion to reopen to permit the alien to pursue such relief to the immigration court.” William J. Howard, Prosecutorial Discretion (October 24, 2005).

Our office argued that if our client’s case is reopened, she will be prima facie eligible to adjust her status. Our client has been living in the United States since 2009, has no criminal record, and has an approved I-130 petition based on her marriage to a U.S citizen spouse.

Eventually, the DHS office agreed to join in our Motion to Reopen and Terminate on June 1, 2015. The DHS filed the joint motion to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and the BIA issued a decision on July 30, 2015 and reopened and terminated our client’s case. Now, our client can file her adjustment of status application to the USCIS directly at any time.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Motion to Remand with BIA to Apply for Adjustment of Status based on Pending I-130 Petition for Moldovan Client in Cleveland, Ohio

CASE: Motion to Remand / Reopen based on Pending I-130 Petition
CLIENT: Moldovan
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States with a valid J-1 visa from Romania in June 2007. He remained in the United States for a time longer than permitted. Later, he was placed in deportation proceedings due to his overstay and a Notice to Appear was issued. His asylum relief was denied by the Immigration Judge in April 2012, but an appeal was timely filed.  The BIA appeal was pending when our client contacted our office in March 2014.

While the BIA appeal was pending, our client married his U.S. citizen wife in February 2013. His wife filed an I-130 petition for our client on March 7, 2013.  He contacted our office for legal assistance for a Motion to Remand and possible adjustment of status if the Motion is granted.  We explained to him that the Motion to Remand procedure and he retained our office on April 8, 2014. On April 17, 2014, we prepared and filed a Motion to Remand for Adjustment of Status Based on a Pending I-130 on behalf our client. You typically want the I-130 to be approved prior to filing the Motion to Remand, but by submitting the actual I-130 application itself and its supporting documents attached to the Motion, you can show that it is approvable.

In Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992), the BIA found that a motion to remand must conform to the same standards as a motion to reopen, where the respondent presents new evidence which would likely change the result of the case. In a Motion to Reopen before the BIA, the Applicant must show that the evidence is material, unavailable at time of original hearing, and could not have been discovered or presented at the original hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). In this case, adjustment of status relief was not available for our client at his previous hearing since he was not married his U.S. Citizen wife.

Our office filed a Motion to Remand for Adjustment of Status based on a pending I-130 to the BIA on April 17, 2014. We argued that our client will be eligible for adjustment of status once the I-130 is approved since he had a legal entry to the U.S., has no criminal records, and has no other grounds of inadmissibility. We also attached a lot of bona fide marital evidence between our client and his U.S. citizen wife to demonstrate that  the I-130 petition is approvable.

While his motion was pending before the BIA, he and his wife appeared for the I-130 interview on May 5, 2014. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our client at our office.  On the day of our client’s I-130 interview, our attorney accompanied them at the Cleveland, OH USCIS. The interview went well, and the I-130 petition was approved.

On June 6, 2014, the BIA granted our motion, reopened our client’s case, and the record was remanded for further proceedings.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen with DHS Approved for Indonesian Client in Kentucky

CASE: Joint Motion to Reopen and Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition

CLIENT: Indonesian
LOCATION: Kentucky; San Francisco (EOIR)

Our client is from Indonesia who came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitor’s visa in March 2004. She has remained in the United States past her authorized period of stay.  Later, she filed for asylum and withholding of removal in April 2006, but the Immigration Judge in San Francisco, CA denied all applications for relief.

She filed an appeal with the BIA, but in June 2007, the Board affirmed the Immigration Judge’s findings and dismissed the appeal. She then proceeded to appeal her case at the Federal Circuit Court, but was denied. She even filed a Motion to Reopen, which was also denied in January 2013.

Our client remained in the United States with the final order of removal.

She married her current U.S. citizen husband in August 2012. Her husband filed an I-130 petition in November 2012, which was subsequently approved by the USCIS in November 2013.

Our client and her husband consulted our firm. They wish to know if she has any viable options for her immigration status.

After careful review, our office determined that we can file a Request to the DHS to join in a Motion to Reopen based on the I-130 approval and Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum.

Our client retained our office on December 4, 2013.

Once retained, our office prepared and filed a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen and Terminate to the San Francisco DHS office on February 21, 2014. Our office prepared an extensive brief along with multiple supporting documents to request a favorable exercise of DHS’s discretion on this case. Our client’s husband was a member of the US army, deployed in Afghanistan several times, and that was part of our argument.

We argued that DHS should consider the following factors as set forth in Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum: (1) whether adjustment of status was available at the prior hearing; (2) whether the alien is statutorily eligible for adjustment of status; and (3) whether the alien merits a favorable exercise of discretion. Bo Cooper, Motions to Reopen for Consideration of Adjustment of Status (May 17, 2001). In considering these factors, as delineated in William J. Howard’s October 24, 2005, Memorandum, “Where a motion to reopen for adjustment of status… is filed on behalf of an alien with substantial equities, no serious criminal or immigration violations, and who is legally eligible to be granted relief except that the motion is beyond the 90-day limitation contained in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23, strongly consider exercising prosecutorial discretion and join in this motion to reopen to permit the alien to pursue such relief to the immigration court.” William J. Howard, Prosecutorial Discretion (October 24, 2005).

Our office argued that if our client’s case is reopened, she will be prima facie eligible to adjust her status. Our client has been living in the United States since 2004, has no criminal record, and has an approved I-130 petition based on the marriage to U.S citizen spouse.

Eventually, the DHS office agreed to join in our Motion to Reopen and Terminate on April 21, 2014. The DHS filed the joint motion to the San Francisco Immigration Court, and our client case will be reopened and terminated soon.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Motion to Reopen In Absentia Approval and Termination of Removal Proceedings with the Philadelphia Immigration Court for Filipino Client in Pennsylvania

CASE:  Termination of Removal Proceedings / Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Filipino
LOCATION: Pennsylvania / Immigration Court: Philadelphia Immigration Court

Our client came to the United States on a valid K-1 fiancé visa in 2004. He married his U.S. citizen fiance within two months of his entry, and then he eventually filed an I-485 adjustment of status application.

In May 2005, our client received his conditional permanent resident card. However, his I-751 application was denied in December 2007 due to his troubled marriage and he got divorced with his U.S. Citizen wife in April 2008.

Unbeknownst to our client, a Notice to Appear was issued against him and it was sent to his previous address in June 2008.  Thus, our client did not know of the issuance of his NTA and his initial Master Calendar hearing. Eventually, he missed the hearing and the Immigration Court issued an order of removal against our client in June 2008.  Later, our client got married again with his ex-wife. After the re-marriage, his U.S. citizen wife filed an I-130 petition for our client and this was approved in June 2009.

Due to his confusion on what to do after the approved I-130 (the approval mentioned something about consular processing) our client left the United States and went to the Philippines to apply for an immigrant visa. During the interview, our client learned of his final order of removal in absentia and he was asked to file a waiver. Unfortunately, his waiver application was denied because there was no waiver for inadmissibility under 212(a)(6)(B), which provided, based on the letter, that “any alien who without reasonable cause fails to attend or remain in attendance at a proceeding to determine the alien’s inadmissibility or deportability and who seeks admission to the United States within 5 years of such alien’s subsequent departure of removal is inadmissible.”

Thus, our client needed to reopen his case and get a termination order from the court to file his waiver.

To rescind the final order, he has to get his case reopened. This is done through a Motion to Reopen filed with the Immigration Judge who gave the final order. Based on this Motion to Reopen, the Immigration Judge can rescind the in absentia order of removal if you are able to show that you did not receive notice of the hearing.

On August 14, 2013, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Philadelphia Immigration Court. Documentation of his address at the date of the final order, a detailed affidavit regarding his addresses and the circumstances around the final order date, documentation of the last address he provided to the immigration service prior to the final order date, and other supporting documents were submitted (20 exhibits). On September 24, 2013, the Philadelphia Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case.

After his case was reopened, our office filed a Motion to Terminate Proceedings to the Philadelphia Immigration Court. As a result, on October 21, 2013, the Immigration Judge in the Philadelphia Immigration Court granted our Motion to Terminate for our client. Our client’s removal proceeding is now terminated, and he can file a waiver application for his immigrant visa.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Motion to Reopen In Absentia Approval for Cameroonian Client in Houston Texas

CASE: Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Cameroonian
LOCATION: Client: Houston, TX / EOIR: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States from Cameroon in 2000.  He entered legally on an F-1 visa.

In 2002, he filed for asylum with the USCIS.  He was interviewed at the CIS office, but his asylum application was referred to the Immigration Court in New Orleans.  After his first master calendar hearing, he requested for a change of venue to Hartford, CT.

In 2004, our client married his U.S. citizen wife and she filed an I-130 on behalf of our client. Our client filed the I-485 adjustment of status application simultaneously with the I-130 petition even though he was in removal proceedings. He had no legal representation at that time.

However, with the help of the Immigration Judge and DHS counsel, he served copies of the I-130 and I-485 application and informed the court that he filed the adjustment of status application. When he served the copies of his I-130/I-485 application, the DHS attorney told our client that she will try to re-route the I-485 application he filed to the CIS to the court. Our client assumed that given that he had been in clear communication with the Court and the DHS attorney,  that everything will be fine with his case and both files will be merged.

Later in August 2004, our client moved to Cleveland, Ohio due to his new employment and his case venue was changed from Hartford, CT to Cleveland, OH as well.  He attended his master calendar hearings in Cleveland, and in December 2005, our client and his wife attended their green card interview at the USCIS Cleveland Field office.  After the interview, our client eventually got his conditional green card in the mail and he was under the assumption that if he was given a green card, then he must have done everything right and that the removal case had been dropped.

While he resided in the Cleveland area, he moved to different addresses and he had always promptly notified both Immigration Court and the USCIS by filing change of address forms.  In April 2006, he went to his another master calendar hearing which he got in his new address.  However, our client was told to go home and that he will get a letter in the mail with a re-scheduled master hearing date.  He never received anything else from Court since then.

As mentioned above, our client got his green card and he filed an I-751 application two years later to remove conditions on the green card. He also got this. He had foreign trips and one of his entries, the issue of his final order came up but he eventually was let go and his green card was even given back to him.

Later, he filed an N-400 naturalization application and during his N-400 interview the final order of removal in absentia which was issued in November 2006 was brought up again. He was stunned and contacted a local immigration attorney in Houston, Texas where he currently resides. However, his attorney never filed the Motion to the court.

Our client contacted our office in late April 2013 and sought legal assistance. We advised him that we can file a Motion to Reopen in absentia order of removal.

To rescind the final order, he has to get his case reopened. This is done through a Motion to Reopen filed with the Immigration Judge who gave the final order.  Based on this Motion to Reopen, the Immigration Judge can rescind the in absentia order of removal if you are able to show that you did not receive proper notice of the hearing. If the Notice to Appear or hearing notice was sent to the wrong address for example, and not the last address you provided to the immigration service, then there’s a good basis for a Motion to Reopen.

On May 9, 2013, our office filed a Motion to Reopen with the Cleveland Immigration Court. Documentation of his address at the date of the final order, a detailed affidavit regarding his addresses and his circumstances around the final order date, copies of his green card and immigration related documentation, documentation of the last address he provided to the immigration service and to the Immigration Court prior to the final order date, and other supporting documents were submitted (14 exhibits).

On June 19, 2013, the Cleveland Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case.  Our client now does not have the final order of removal and may seek to terminate removal proceedings.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

captcha

For other motion to reopen success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Motion to Remand with BIA based on Pending I-130 Petition Approved for Romanian Client in Chicago Illinois

CASE: Motion to Remand based on Pending I-130 Petition
CLIENT: Romanian
LOCATION: Chicago, IL

Our client came to the United States with a valid J-1 visa from Romania in July 2002. He remained in the United States for a time longer than permitted.

Later on, he was placed in removal proceedings due to his overstay and a Notice to Appear was issued. His cancellation of removal application was denied by the Immigration Judge in April 2011, but an appeal was timely filed.  The BIA appeal was denied March 15, 2013.

While the BIA appeal was pending, our client married his U.S. citizen wife in September 2012. His wife filed an I-130 petition for our client on November 5, 2012.  He contacted our office for legal assistance for a Motion to Remand.  We explained to him the Motion to Remand procedure and he retained our office on April 1, 2013.

On April 5, 2013, we prepared and filed the Motion to Remand for Adjustment of Status Based on a Pending I-130 on behalf our client.  We had to file this Motion within 90 days of the Board decision to make it timely. You typically want the I-130 to be approved prior to filing the Motion to Remand, but by submitting the actual I-130 application itself and its supporting documents attached to the Motion, even though it is still pending, you can show that it is approvable.

In Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992), the BIA found that a motion to remand must conform to the same standards as a motion to reopen, where the respondent presents new evidence which would likely change the result of the case. In a Motion to Reopen before the BIA, the Applicant must show that the evidence is material, unavailable at time of original hearing, and could not have been discovered or presented at the original hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). In this case, adjustment of status relief was not available for our client at his previous hearing since he was not married to his U.S. Citizen wife.

Our office filed a Motion to Remand for Adjustment of Status based on a pending I-130 to the BIA on April 5, 2013. We argued that our client will be eligible for adjustment of status once the I-130 is approved since he had a legal entry to the U.S., has no criminal records, and has no other grounds of inadmissibility.

We also attached a lot of bona fide marital evidence between our client and his U.S. citizen wife to demonstrate that the I-130 petition was approvable. Eventually, on May 30, 2013, the BIA granted our motion, reopened our client’s case, and the record was remanded for further proceedings.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

captcha

For other Motion to Reopen success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Motion to Reopen In Absentia Approval to Termination of Removal Proceedings for Moldovan in Baltimore Maryland

CASE: Motion to Reopen / I-130 approval / Termination of Proceedings

CLIENT: Moldovan

LOCATION: Baltimore, MD (EOIR) / Fairfax, VA (USCIS)

Our client came to the United States from Moldova in 2008 with her ex-husband.  While they were residing at the Baltimore area, her ex-husband filed an asylum application to the USCIS.  Our client was a derivative applicant for this asylum application.  Later this case was referred to the Baltimore Immigration Court and removal proceedings were initiated against our client and her ex-husband.  While this asylum application was pending at the Immigration Court, our client and her ex-husband got a divorce due to marital difficulties.  Her previous immigration lawyer filed a Motion to Deconsolidate, but our client never got a response from her previous attorney nor the Court regarding the possible deconsolidation.

Her individual hearing was scheduled in May 2011, but she was not informed of this date.  She later learned that she had a final order of removal because of her absence from her ex-husband.  Once she learned about that, she contacted our office for legal assistance. We advised her that we can file a Motion to Reopen in absentia order of removal based on exceptional circumstances. She retained our office on August 15, 2011.

To rescind the final order, she has to get her case reopened. This is done through a Motion to Reopen filed with the Immigration Judge who gave the final order.  Based on this Motion to Reopen, the Immigration Judge can rescind the in absentia order of removal if you are able to show that you did not receive proper notice of the hearing. If the Notice to Appear or hearing notice was sent to the wrong address for example, and not the last address you provided to the immigration service, then there’s a good basis for a Motion to Reopen.

On August 18, 2011, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Baltimore Immigration Court. Documentation of her address at the date of the final order, a detailed affidavit regarding her addresses and her circumstances around the final order date, documentation of her medical appointment on the day of hearing, the last address she provided to the immigration service and to the Immigration Court prior to the final order date, and other supporting documents were submitted (12 exhibits). Eventually, on September 23, 2011, the Baltimore Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case.

Our client’s divorce was finalized on August 11, 2011.  After her case was reopened, she married her current U.S. citizen husband in July 2012.  Her U.S. citizen husband filed an I-130 petition on behalf of our client on August 16, 2012 with our legal assistance and they appeared at the I-130 interview on December 18, 2012 at the Fairfax, VA USCIS Field Office.  Prior to the interview, our office thoroughly prepared our client and her husband for the interview.  Although the interview was intensive, on January 9, 2013, the I-130 petition is approved.

After the I-130 was approved, our office filed a Motion to Terminate proceedings with an attached I-485 application and its supporting documents on January 30, 2013.  On February 13, 2013, our client appeared at the Baltimore Immigration Court for her initial master calendar hearing after the reopening of her case.  Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office represented our client at the hearing and sought termination before Immigration Judge.  The Immigration Judge granted our Motion to Terminate and eventually terminated our client’s case without prejudice on the same day.  Now, she can file her I-485 adjustment of status application with USCIS to obtain her green card.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

captcha

 

For other Motion to Reopen success stories, please click here.

For other Termination success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.
<a href=”https://plus.google.com/107743308565341841259?rel=author”>Google</a>

{ 0 comments }