Success Stories

Alex and Diana (the real names were changed) called my office to check if I could help them with the filing of a family petition and adjusting Diana’s status. We scheduled a consultation, and they brought their documents, and files.

Alex was a US citizen and Diana was from Brazil, they recently got married. Diana first came to the US in 2001, overstayed her B1 visa, and recently was denied an adjustment of status application. Her US citizen father filed I-130 for her many years ago, and her family preference category became current. Following the advice of some notary, she believed she could adjust even though she failed to maintain the lawful status. However, because Diana failed to maintain her lawful status in the US, and she was over 21 years old, she could not adjust in the US. In addition, she accumulated a significant amount of unlawful presence and had she left the country, she would have become barred from returning back for 10 years.

We decided to act fast. Before Diana was served with Notice to Appear, we filed I-130 and I-485 with supporting documents. Subsequently, we appeared for an interview, and although Diana was questioned regarding the first I-130 filed by her father, the officer believed that couple entered into a bona fide marriage, and granted her adjustment of status application. It must be noted, that if Diana was served with Notice to Appear, it would be still possible to adjust her status, but the burden of proof for a bona fide marriage would be much higher.

A 23 years old Karim (the real name was changed) came to our office after he was fired from his job for displaying a religious sign. He worked at a major department store. He recently became more religious than he previously was, and decided to follow the rules of his confession.

The store manager was unfamiliar with the Title VII laws, failed to follow the department store’s regulations and fired my client because he didn’t like his new appearance.

We immediately filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights and attempted to negotiate the dispute with the employer. The employer refused, arguing that my client resigned rather than was fired. Subsequently, the employer-provided documents signed by my client stating that he was resigning.

What the employer failed to realize is that my client had an alternative explanation of the signature on the resignation document, along with evidence that the resignation document did not reflect the true reason for my client’s termination.

After the case was filed in Federal Court, and went through the discovery process, the parties agreed to employ mediator services, and after through preparation of mediation, briefs were able to come to a mutually acceptable resolution. Even though it took us almost three years, we did not give up and were able to achieve for our client acceptable result.

Ms. Zhang (not her real name of course) was placed in removal proceedings and she was charged and convicted of the criminal possession of the sufficient amount of controlled substance. Because by the time Ms. Zhang was served with Notice to Appear, she was a permanent resident for more than five years, and continuously resided in the US for seven years. She has left the country on one occasion, and it was long before alleged criminal activity.

Hence, Ms. Zhang was eligible and filed for cancellation of removal for certain permanent residents. (note: her alleged crime did not qualify as an aggravated felony.)

Initially, the government filed for a removal of Ms. Zhang under 237(a)(2)(B)(i) as being deportable as a permanent resident who was convicted of a crime involving a controlled substance. Halfway through the hearings, the government decided to amend its notice to appear to add a new charge of inadmissibility under 212(a)(2)(C) “any alien who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe is or has been an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance or in any listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), or is or has been a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with others in the illicit trafficking in any such controlled or listed substance or chemical.”

Ms. Shautsova, in her motion in opposition, argued that the stated ground of inadmissibility was not applicable to Ms. Zhang case because she was not a person seeking admission pursuant to INA 101(a)(13)(C). Further, none of the grounds under the INA 101(a)(13)(C) were applicable to Ms. Zhang. Ms. Zhang has not left the country after her arrest, and Ms. Zhang was not applying for adjustment of status.

The Court agreed with Ms. Shautsova’s arguments, and the government withdrew its charge.

Thereafter, Ms. Zhang successfully continued with her application for cancellation of removal.

Mr. Samir (we changed his name) contacted my office after his application for EAD was denied and he was informed that the clock on his case was stopped. By that time his application for asylum was pending over nine months, but he was referred to the court by an Asylum officer before the 180 days elapsed on his case.

Mr. Samir’s then representative made the first Master calendar appearance, asked for an adjournment and disappeared. This caused the clock for EAD to stop.

Realizing, that further delays on Mr. Samir’s part will prevent him from obtaining the work authorization that he desperately needed to support his family, my office worked around the clock to prepare and submit all the documents at the next court appearance.

On the date of the Master hearing, we appeared in Immigration court and submitted amended Asylum application with supplemental materials. We inquired if the court would start the clock, and the Immigration Judge advertised to “check later.” Two days after the case was placed on the Individual calendar, and there were no long delays “caused by the applicant” we checked the automatic system, and the clock was still stopped.

Ms. Shautsova submitted a motion to the IJ asking to restart the clock. Right after the motion was filed, she contacted IJ’s secretary to make sure the IJ had a chance to review the motion. The same day, the clock was restarted and Mr. Samir received his EAD shortly.

The mother and sister of the 23 years old Dmitrii (the real name is changed) came to my office asking to help them to bring Dmitrii to the US for a family event.

After Dmitrii’s sister got married to a US citizen, she was able to sponsor Dmitrii ’s and her mom to the US, but because he was over 21, he could not qualify for a fast track immigrant visa, and was left in his home country. The family was devastated, they tried to obtain a B-1 visa for Dimitrii a year before but the application was denied.

After the sister and mother came to my office, we reviewed the situation and were able to collect enough evidence of Dmitrii’s ties with his home country so that the consul issued a favorable decision on his new visa application. We presented proof of Dmitrii’s college attendance and classes; part-time job contract; his fiancé’s statement; letters of recommendation from local religious organizations; as well as titles to his apartment and a car.

We are glad to announce our recent success in securing ad advance parole for an El Salvadorian citizen. Mr. Costa (we changed the real name) was granted a TPS status in the United States many years ago. However, this past June he had to urgently travel to El Salvador to care for his sick relative. He took his 7 years old son, a US citizen, with him. What he failed to realize when leaving the country, is that his advance parole document had expired.

The relative felt better, and Mr. Costa was ready to go back to the United States, especially because his little son was supposed to start the new school year. However, without an Advance Parole, he could not travel. Mr. Costa hired one attorney who filed a letter request with a USCIS field office back in early September. Then, he hired another attorney who filed for I-131 for him but failed to explain the urgency of the situation.

Finally his family came to my office. Immediately we contacted Mr. Costa’s son’s school and requested a letter explaining that the boy will lose the school place if he is not back in the US shortly. We also contacted a local church where Mr. Costa used to go and asked for letters of support. We contacted all members of his family who were willing to vouch for him and provide letters of support. Within hours we submitted our request to expedite Mr. Costa’s advance parole with National Benefits Center, local Service Center, El Salvadorian field Office, US Embassy in El Salvador, and requested assistance from the AILA.

Upon receipt of our request, the Local field Office immediately decided to help Mr. Costa and scheduled an expedited appointment for his biometrics and a week later Mr. Costa was able to receive his document and now he is back in the United States with his family!

Where there is a Will, there is a Way!

Mr. Nelson and his wife requested an emergency consultation with my office: their time to file an appeal with the USCIS on Mr. Nelson’s I-601 fraud waiver application was running out and their then lawyer did not return their phone calls. I agreed to meet with them the same day. It turned out that Mr. Nelson entered the country more than 25 years ago using someone else’s identity. He married Mrs. Nelson several years ago. The couple filed papers for adjustment of status and I-601 “fraud waiver.” However, subsequently, they received a decision on I-601 waiver: it was denied. From the first minutes of our conversation, it became apparent that the prior lawyer overlooked a very important fact of the Nelsons’ family life and their I-601 application: for the past two years Mrs. Nelson was taking care of her disabled brother who is suffering from chronic disease and without the help of Mr. Nelson, she will not be able to provide care for the brother, earn a living, put two children through college, and pay off family’s credit card debt. We collected a new package of documents, statements from family and friends, medical records, credit card statements, letters from church, and other supporting materials. This time the immigration authorities agreed that Mrs. Nelson will experience an extreme hardship in case of Mr. Nelson’s removal and granted our request for the waiver.

I received a call from Mr. Flower (not a real name of course) stating that his brother who is outside the United States needs help. The brother visited the US three summers ago and was charged with a misdemeanor. He left the country before the charge was resolved and as a result, had an outstanding warrant which precluded him from applying for a visa to come back to the US (the brother wanted to come back to the US).

It is a well-known fact that in a criminal court, the defendant must appear in person for any resolution of the case. Now, our defendant physically cannot come into the country, because at a minimum the consulate would not issue him a visa, and even if the consulate did so, the person would be apprehended at the border due to the warrant.

So, what did we do? First, we contacted the district attorney’s office and located the case. It took some time to put the case back on the active calendar. Then, the most important part: we had to convince the court and the prosecutor to adjudicate the case in the defendant’s absence through duly executed affidavits with proper authentication. Luckily for brother, his case was dismissed and now he can apply for a visa and come to the US. But unresolved criminal charges, if serious enough, can be a huge problem. My advice would be not to leave the country before their resolution.

Mr. Alexy applied for asylum using services of one of the “paralegals” and his asylum claim got denied after the interview. He was looking for a lawyer to represent him in court and came to our office. After reviewing his documents, it became apparent that the “paralegal” omitted one of the grounds of asylum claim: membership in a particular social group; failed to advise Mr. Alexy to use an expert; failed to submit a thorough affidavit in support of his claim, and advised to cause delays in his case which resulted in Mr. Alexy’s inability to receive employment authorization.

Of course, Mr. Alexy came to the office two days before his Master Hearing leaving us no time to prepare a new submission. On the day of the hearing, we appeared in court and asked for a three months extension of time to be able to cure the damage done. We were lucky that the court granted it, and did not adjourn the case for a year. During the three months period, we amended Mr. Alexy’s application, researched and gathered supplemental documents, and submitted a new affidavit explaining the need for the amendments. We also were able to find a highly qualified expert.

During the next Master hearing we submitted a new application and went over the pleadings with the court. Mr. Alexy received his employment authorization shortly, and we started preparing for the Individual hearing. The Individual hearing was adjourned by the court several times due to the busy calendar and incident weather. Finally, during the first minutes of the hearing, the Court confronted Mr. Alexy with the facts submitted by the “paralegal” and we had to explain the misguidance and wrong advice Mr. Alexy was relying on at that time. In addition to good preparation, we had a great judge who actually listened to the applicant, and understood the traps newly arriving immigrants get into when they hire “paralegals” and “notario-s”. However, the biggest challenge was ahead of us: even though the judge indicated he was inclined to grant asylum, the judge scheduled another individual hearing just to render the decision. Right before the decision, the judge’s caseload was transferred to another judge, who did not hear the case and scheduled the case for …another Individual hearing… By then my client was in the proceedings for four years… He was under a lot of pressure financially and emotionally, he was separated from his family for years. We had to find a faster solution than another four years in court. I could not put him through the stress of a new trial. We petitioned to the new judge explaining in detail that the first judge indicated the asylum was warranted, cited relevant part of proceedings, and case history. The government did not object, and the new judge granted relief within minutes. I strongly believe that loyalty to your client contributes to the results.

Many applicants are scared of the hardship waivers as they are afraid that in case of the denial they will have to leave the country and be barred from coming back to the U.S. That is why before filing they need to meet with an attorney: somebody who is familiar with the case law and who can give an estimate of success and suggest the best ways of developing the arguments. There is no such a thing as a 100% guarantee, but there is good preparation and willingness to overcome obstacles.

Mrs. and Mr. Reyes (their real names changed) called my office to inquire what form they need to file for a waiver and at what point Mrs. Reyes would need to leave the country. After a short conversation, we agreed that they would come to my office for a consultation. During the consultation, it appeared that Mrs. Reyes qualified for a waiver that, if granted, allows her to adjust status without having to leave the country. Further, we discovered that the couple had two minor children born in the U.S. Also, Mrs. Reyes for years was assisting Mr. Reyes to look after his ill parents, and Mr. Reyes himself was suffering from an injury received in a car accident. Based on these facts, and additional hardships that we defined during the interview, I estimated that the couple had a good chance for the waiver to be granted, and Mrs. and Mr. Reyes agreed to file the necessary paperwork.

It was not an easy decision because essentially, the non-citizen had to disclose its “illegal” existence in the U.S. and assume the risk of ultimately being deported and separated with the family members.

We submitted the whole package at once. Some attorneys advocate for submission of the I-601 during the interview, but we chose a different approach, hoping that our preparation will pay off and the decision will be expedited because often waiver applications are taking years to be finalized and unnecessary delays just add stress to clients. Of course, we had to go through necessary steps, including the interview, but in the end, the Reyes family was able to stay united, and now they no longer need to be afraid of lengthy separation and despair. Mrs. Reyes is getting ready to visit her family overseas who she has not seen for 13 years…