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 Despite Canadian Assault Causing Bodily Harm Conviction, Green Card Based on Marriage Approved for Canadian Client in Phoenix Arizona

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

NATIONALITY: Canada

LOCATION: Phoenix, AZ

Our client is from Canada who came to the U.S. on a B-2 Visitor Visa in August 2015. In January 2016, our is married his current U.S. citizen wife.  He retained our office for his green card application on February 15, 2016. Our client had a criminal record in Canada – assault causing bodily harm; however, based on Matter of Perez Contreras, our office determined that his conviction record should not be construed as a Crime involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT).

Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485Adjustment of Status Application on February 22, 2016.  We included an explanatory brief regarding our client’s criminal record – that it does not rise to the level of a CIMT conviction. 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 via conference call as well. On September 19, 2016, our client was interviewed at the Phoenix, Arizona office. Eventually, on November 10, 2016, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Marriage Green Card Approval for Ghanaian Client in Phoenix Arizona

CASE: I-485 Approval
CLIENT: Ghanaian
LOCATION: Phoenix, AZ

Our client is a Ghanaian citizen who came to the U.S. on a B-2 Visitor Visa in February 2004. As our previous success story explained, our client had a final order of removal in absentia, but his case was reopened after our office’s successful Motion to Reopen in April 2012.

Our client and his wife married in August 2007 and they have two U.S. citizen children now.

Our office immediately filed an I-130 Petition with bona fide marriage evidence on March 12, 2012. The I-130 petition was approved on August 20, 2012 without an interview. Our client appeared at the Phoenix Immigration Court on August 21, 2012 for his initial master calendar hearing. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office represented him at the hearing, did pleadings and sought adjustment of status relief.

After the I-130 was approved, our office filed a Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings with the I-485 application and supporting documents to the Phoenix Immigration Court. The DHS counsel in Phoenix did not oppose the Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings without prejudice on October 15, 2012.

After his case was terminated by the Immigration Court, our office prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on November 24, 2012, 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 over the conference all.

On January 28, 2013, our client was interviewed at the Phoenix CIS office. Our client was fully prepared at the interview went well.  On the same day, his 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.

<a href=”https://plus.google.com/107743308565341841259?rel=author”>Google</a>

<a href=”https://plus.google.com/109631653288081090975″ rel=”publisher”>Google+</a>

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Detained Chinese Client Released After Successful Bond Redetermination Hearing in Florence Arizona

CASE: Bond Redetermination Hearing
APPLICANT: Chinese
LOCATION: Florence Immigration Court AZ

Our office was contacted in December of 2012 regarding one Chinese person who was detained in Florence, Arizona. He tried to enter the United States without valid documents and was incarcerated by immigration officers.

Prior to retention, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement set a bond amount of $15,000.  Our client wished to have that reduced so we filed a motion for bond redetermination with the Florence Immigration Court in Arizona.  Our office communicated with him and his U.S. resident relative in New York, and gathered as much information regarding his relief, equities, criminal record, family ties, and financial ability to post bond.  We also gathered supporting documents from our client’s relatives, from proof of their status and residence, to bank statements and tax returns.

On January 11, 2013, we represented our client at his Florence Arizona Immigration Court bond re-determination hearing.  During the bond re-determination hearing, we explained to the Court that our client already passed his credible fear interview, was not a flight risk, had established his residence upon release, had established his financial ability to post bond, and that he had ample family ties in the United States who submitted proof of his residence and immigration status.  Moreover, our office explained that his lack of criminal record, designated address with contact information from his relative in the United States, ability to post bond, and eligibility for asylum relief clearly demonstrate that the bond should be reduced.  At the end of the hearing, the Immigration Judge took our arguments into account and reduced the bond amount to only $6000.

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 jail case success stories, please click here.

For other 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>

<a href=”https://plus.google.com/109631653288081090975″ rel=”publisher”>Google+</a>

{ 0 comments }

Show Me Your Papers

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled that Arizona authorities can enforce the section of the state’s immigration law critics have called the “show me your papers” provision, as reported on CNN. This clears the way for police to carry out the requirement that officers, while enforcing other laws, question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally. This provision has been in the middle of a two-year legal battle that resulted in a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June upholding the requirement.

Those against the provision pled for Judge Bolton to block the provision, arguing that it would lead to systematic racial profiling and unreasonably long detentions if enforced. Those for the provision argued that racial profiling was simply a speculation. Governor Jan Brewer’s office also said that police have received training to avoid discriminatory practices and that officers must have reasonable suspicion that a person is in the country illegally to trigger the requirement.

Judge Bolton mentioned that her Court will not ignore statements from the Supreme Court that the provision cannot be challenged further on its face until the law takes effect. She confirmed the Supreme Court’s interpretation that the law may still be challenged as unconstitutional on other grounds.

Arizona’s law, SB1070, was passed in 2010. Five other states, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah have adopted similar variations.

ICE Detained and Deported A Record Number of Illegals

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained and deported a record number of illegals in 2011 and are on track for similar numbers this year, even though the number of illegals crossing the border dropped to a 40-year low, according to the New York Times.  ICE agents deported 391,953 in 2011, including 188,000 convicted of crimes, which was an all-time high for such deportations.

Citizens of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador made up 93% of all people deported last year. To date there are about 366,000 deported through August 31, but they include 191,000 convicted criminals, more than last year. ICE also detained about 429,000 immigrants last year which was another record.

Though the Department of Homeland Security (DHs) had said that they are focusing on illegal immigrants with criminal convictions, the record number of deportations the past two years had a big impact on the Latino community, causing doubt on the Obama administration.

Circuit Cases

  • 1st Circuit: Rebenko v. Holder, September 4, 2012. Asylum. Petitioner testified at the IJ level that she experienced mistreatment in Ukraine on account of her Pentecostal faith on four occasions: (1) her arrest in May of 1999; (2) her receipt of threatening phone calls from nationalists following her arrest; (3) the “mockings” she experienced during her graduation in June of 2000; and (4) her beating at the hands of “skinheads”. The 1st Circuit noted that Petitioner did not report any significant mistreatment before May of 1999 or after June of 2000, though she had practiced Pentecostalism since childhood and continued to live in Ukraine until July of 2001. The Court held that the IJ could have reasonably concluded that the mistreatment Petitioner described was not “systematic” but was “reflective of a series of isolated incidents” over the course of a bad year. The Court mentioned that Petitioner describes no nexus between her harassment at her graduation and any government action or omission. Her speculation that the police caused nationalists to make threatening phone calls was not supported by evidence. The Court viewed Petitioner’s May 1999 arrest as a single incident in which Petitioner suffered no injuries requiring medical treatment, and that a reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to find that this incident rose to the level of persecution.
  • 9th Circuit: Sanchez-Avalos v. Holder, September 4, 2012. Criminal. Petitioner petitioned for review the BIA’s decision that he is not eligible for waiver of inadmissibility because he was convicted of an aggravated felony. Petitioner argued that his conviction for sexual battery under California Penal Code § 243.4(a) did not qualify as sexual abuse of minor. The Court applied the categorical and modified categorical approaches. The Court concluded that the crime of sexual battery under California law is categorically broader than the federal generic crime of “sexual abuse of a minor” because the California crime may be committed against a victim of any age, while the federal generic offense requires proof that the victim was a minor. Court held that the crime of sexual battery in California is not categorically an aggravated felony, and that none of the evidence established that the petitioner’s victim was a minor.

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

captcha

{ 0 comments }

Case: I-130
Client: Ghanaian
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Our client came to the United States on a valid B-2 visa from Ghana in 2004 to visit his aunt in Maryland. Later, he decided to stay in the United States, and did not leave. He worked illegally, and on June 2004, our client got picked up at work by immigration officers and was issued a Notice to Appear.

The Notice to Appear did not have a hearing date and time. He was told he would get a hearing notice in the mail. He never moved for the next two years, yet he never received any hearing notice. Our client thought that the immigration court just closed his case due to his young age at that time. Apparently his hearing was scheduled and since he did not show up, he was ordered removed in absentia.

More than three years later, he married his U.S. Citizen wife and moved to Arizona. They had two U.S. citizen children. After a few years raising their children, our client decided to work on his immigration status. He contacted our office and we found out through his A number that he already had a final order of removal, and thus could not apply for adjustment of status. So our office filed a Motion to Reopen with the Arlington Immigration Court in Virginia and the Court granted our Motion. We then filed a Motion to Change of Venue to Phoenix, Arizona and the Motion was granted as well.

Prior to filing the Motion to Reopen, our office filed an I-130 petition based on our client’s marriage to his U.S. citizen wife. The I-130 petition was filed on March 5, 2012.  Generally, if someone is a beneficiary of an I-130 petition while he or she is in removal proceedings, the USCIS schedules what’s called a Stokes interview, in which both husband and wife are interviewed separately for intensive questioning. This is to make sure the marriage is in good faith, and not entered into for the purpose of avoiding deportation.

The I-130 petition we filed though included various supporting documents which demonstrated the bona fide nature of our client’s marriage. We also emphasized the fact that they have been married for 5 years and have two U.S. citizen children. As a result, the USCIS approved the I-130 petition for our client without requesting an interview at the local office. The I-130 was actually approved the day before his scheduled Master Hearing in Phoenix.

Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our firm accompanied our client at his Phoenix hearing. The Judge and DHS attorney were informed of the I-130 approval, and they both took note of our intention to have the case terminated for CIS adjudication of his adjustment of status application.

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 }

CASE: Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Ghanaian
LOCATION: Phoenix, AZ / Immigration Court: Arlington, VA

Our client came to the United States on a valid B-2 visa from Ghana in 2004 to visit his aunt in Maryland. Later, he decided to stay in the United States, and did not leave. He worked illegally, and on June 2004, our client got picked up at work by immigration officers and was issued a Notice to Appear.

The Notice to Appear did not have a hearing date and time. He was told he would get a hearing notice in the mail. He never moved for the next two years, yet he never received any hearing notice in the mail. Thus, he never got notice of his hearing. Our client thought that the immigration court just closed his case due to his young age at that time.

More than three years later, he married his U.S. Citizen wife and moved to Arizona. They have a U.S. citizen child as well.

He contacted our firm to inquire about the possibilities of applying for adjustment of status. Upon checking his documents, we found out that he had a final order in 2005. He said he was not aware that he had a hearing date in March 2005. He explained that he got a Notice to Appear, was expecting a hearing notice, lived at the address that was on the Notice to Appear for the next two years, yet never received anything. Because of his absence at the Arlington Immigration Court hearing, the court issued an in absentia order of removal in 2005.  We told him that we have to reopen his case first before he can even apply for adjustment of status.

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 March 9, 2012, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Arlington 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, documentation of the last address he provided to the immigration service prior to the final order date, and other supporting documents were submitted (26 exhibits). On April 11, 2012, the Arlington 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 adjustment of status relief with the Immigration Court upon approval of the I-130 marriage-based petition that was filed for him. He may also seek termination of removal proceedings and apply for adjustment of status with the CIS instead.

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 }

CASE: Bond Redetermination Hearing
APPLICANT: Chinese
LOCATION: Florence Immigration Court, AZ

Our office was contacted in early March regarding a Chinese individual detained in Florence, Arizona. He tried to enter the United States without valid documents and was incarcerated by immigration officers.

Prior to retention, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement already set a very high bond amount.  Our client wished to have that reduced so we filed a motion for bond redetermination with the Florence Immigration Court in Arizona.  Our office communicated with him and his U.S. resident relative in Pennsylvania, and gathered as much information regarding his relief, equities, criminal record, family ties, and financial ability to post bond.  We also gathered supporting documents from his relative, from proof of their status and residence, to bank statements and tax returns.

On April 6, 2012, Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu represented our client in his Florence Arizona Immigration Court bond re-determination hearing. The DHS proposed a bond but it was too high. During the bond re-determination hearing, we explained to the Court that our client already passed his credible fear interview, was not a flight risk, had established his residence upon release, had established his financial ability to post bond, and had ample family ties in the United States who submitted proof of their residence and immigration status.  Moreover, our office explained that his lack of criminal records, designated address with contact information from his relative in the United States, ability to post bond, and eligibility for asylum relief clearly demonstrate that the bond should be reduced.  At the end of the hearing, the Immigration Judge took our arguments into account and reduced the bond amount by one third of the original amount.

Our client has been released and is in the process of preparing his asylum application.

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 jail case 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 }

CASE: Master Calendar / Bond Redetermination Hearing
APPLICANT: Chinese
LOCATION: Florence Immigration Court AZ

Our office was contacted in the middle of February regarding two Chinese people who were detained in Florence, Arizona. They tried to enter the United States without valid documents and were incarcerated by immigration officers.

Prior to retention, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement set a very high bond amount.  Our client wished to have that reduced so we filed a motion for bond redetermination with the Florence Immigration Court in Arizona.  Our office communicated with them and their U.S. resident relative in Iowa and New York, and gathered as much information regarding their relief, equities, criminal record, family ties, and financial ability to post bond.  We also gathered supporting documents from those relatives, from proof of their status and residence, to bank statements and tax returns.

On February 23 and 24, 2012, we represented our clients at their Florence Arizona Immigration Court master calendar and bond re-determination hearings.  For the Master Calendar hearing, we did pleadings and sought asylum relief. During the bond re-determination hearing, we explained to the Court that our clients already passed their credible fear interviews, were not a flight risk, had established their residence upon release, had established their financial ability to post bond, and that they had ample family ties in the United States who submitted proof of their residence and immigration status.  Moreover, our office explained that their lack of criminal record, designated address with contact information from their relative in the United States, ability to post bond, and eligibility for asylum relief clearly demonstrate that the bond should be reduced.  At the end of the hearing, the Immigration Judge took our arguments into account and reduced the bond amount.

Our clients have been released, venue has been changed, and they are now in the process of preparing their asylum applications.

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 jail case success stories, please click here.

For other deportation 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 }

CASE: J-2 Waiver of Two-Year Foreign Residency Requirement Post-Divorce

NATIONALITY: Romania

LOCATION: Arizona

Our client is a Romanian national who came to the U.S. on a J-2 Visa.  She came with her husband who was on a J-1 Visa. Both were subject to the two-year foreign residency requirement, meaning you would have to go back to your home country for two-years before you can apply for permanent residency and some non-immigrant visas such as H, L, and O visas. (Our firm’s blog will explain this two-year residency requirement for J-1 visa holder and possible waiver application process later with further details).  Moreover, if you are subject to the two-year foreign residency requirement, you are not allowed to change some non-immigrant status in the United States.

Unfortunately, her marriage did not work out well after my client and her ex-husband came to the United States.  Eventually, she got divorced from her ex-husband and later married a U.S. citizen husband.  Her new husband petitioned I-130 and I-485 (green card process based on marriage) on behalf of our client, but her green card application was denied due to her failure to fulfill the two-year foreign residency requirement.  As mentioned above, an immigrant beneficiary who is subject to 2-year requirement cannot get his/her green card even if he/she marries a U.S. citizen until he/she fulfills the requirement or gets a waiver.

Once client’s green card application was denied, she contacted our firm and retained us. Our firm was retained to do this J-2 waiver on October 4, 2010. On October 11, 2010 the J-2 Waiver was filed to the Department of State. We also sent a request to the DOS to be an interested government agency and recommend this waiver based on the fact that our client was divorced from the J-1 visa holder.  On October 26, 2010 the DOS recommended to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) that our client be granted a waiver. Eventually, on November 22, 2010, the USCIS approved the waiver of the 2-year foreign residency requirement. She obtained her waiver within 40 days!  Our client can apply for her green card without having to go back to Romania and be separated from her husband for two years.

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

{ Comments on this entry are closed }