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 Motion to Remand with BIA to Apply for Adjustment of Status and Termination of Removal Proceedings Approved for Moldovan Client in Cleveland Ohio

CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition
CLIENT: Moldovan
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States on 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, the 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 lots of bona fide marital evidence between our client and his U.S. citizen wife to demonstrate 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, I-130 petition was approved for our client.

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

His case was remanded and scheduled for master calendar hearing on July 12, 2017. With the approved I-130 petition, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to terminate proceedings with the I-485 application and supporting documents on July 3, 2017. The DHS counsel in Cleveland, OH agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice on July 12, 2017 hearing.  Now, he can file his I-485 adjustment of status application to USCIS to obtain his green card.

{ 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 Adjustment of Status Approval After Reopening and Termination of Removal Proceedings for Moldovan Client in Fairfax Virginia

CASE: I-485 approval after the 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 was 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 the Immigration Judge.  The Immigration Judge granted our Motion to Terminate and eventually terminated our client’s case without prejudice on the same day.

Once her case was terminated with the Immigration Court, our office prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on March 7, 2013, together with other necessary forms and supporting documents. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients through conference calls.

On May 22, 2013, our client was interviewed at the Fairfax, Virginia USCIS office. Our client was fully prepared and the interview went well.  On the same day, her green card application was approved.

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 marriage-based green card 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 }

CASE: Motion to Reopen and Rescind an In Absentia Order of Removal Based on Exceptional Circumstances
CLIENT: Moldovan
LOCATION: Baltimore, Maryland

Our Moldovan client came to the United States in 2008 with a J-1 visa.  Her ex-husband filed for asylum and she was a derivative applicant for this asylum application. After the application was filed, our client attended all necessary appointments related to her immigration applications.  She went to the CIS office to do her fingerprinting, and attended her asylum interview at the Arlington Asylum office.  Our client also attended her first Master Calendar hearing on March 2010 after her ex- husband’s asylum case was referred to the Baltimore Immigration Court.  Eventually, Respondent and her ex-husband’s individual hearing dates were scheduled on May 19, 2011.

Due to marital difficulties between our client and her ex-husband, her previous lawyer filed a Motion to Deconsolidate in October 2010.  Since our client was a derivative asylum applicant with her ex-husband, the Motion stated that she had her own independent grounds for seeking asylum relief.  Nonetheless, since she filed the Motion to Deconsolidate, she never got a response from her previous attorney nor the Court regarding the possible deconsolidation.

From May 16, 2011 to May 24, 2011, our client was in a great deal of pain with headaches, fever, and other symptoms that resulted from the extraction of her tooth on April 30, 2011.  On the days leading up to the hearings, our client got very sick, including May 19, 2011, the individual hearing date. Thus she did not appear before the Court on her individual hearing date.

She later learned about her order of removal on August 3, 2011.  On that day, the divorce between our client and her ex-husband was finalized.  When our client met her ex-husband, he informed her that she was ordered removed on May 19, 2011 because of her absence at the hearing. Her ex-husband was in that hearing and actually won his asylum case. Once she learned about the order of removal, she immediately contacted her previous attorney and explained to him that she was not able to attend her hearing due to illness.  Our client never received anything pertaining to her order of removal.  She intended to attend Court on May 19, 2011 but was too sick to do so.

Our client contacted and retained our office on August 15, 2011 for the Motion to Reopen and Rescind her in absentia order.  After listening to her reasons and learning the surrounding circumstances pertaining to her non-appearance in Court, our office determined that the Immigration Court will most likely grant our client’s Motion to Rescind an in absentia order based on exceptional circumstances.

We contended that our client could not attend at the hearing due to her medical condition and her absence was inevitable due to her sickness.  Our office included supporting documents such as a doctor’s letter, copies of her medical prescriptions, a letter from her employer stating her absence from work around the time of the Individual Hearing, etc.  Our office filed the Motion on August 18, 2011 within the statutory time frame.  The DHS, however, opposed our Motion, so we filed a response on August 31, 2011.   On September 20, 2011, the Baltimore 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 asylum claim.

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 for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status
CLIENT: Moldovan
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in May 2009 with a J-1 Exchange Visitor visa from Moldova.  She was not subject to the two-year foreign residency requirement, so she could apply for adjustment of status in the United States without a waiver.  She married a U.S. Citizen in December 2010 and retained our office in May 2011 for her adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on June 7, 2011.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, the fingerprint appointment, and the work permit all came on time. There was no Request for Evidence.  Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients. On September 1, 2011, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS.  We accompanied them at the interview as well.  On September 16, 2011, her green card application was approved.

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 marriage-based green card success stories, please click here.

For other success stories click here.

Also feel free to contact our office for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }