Immigrationlawyer4u's Blog

Slow Track I-601 in Ciudad Juarez

immigrationlawyer4u — Fri, 20 May 2011 09:15:11 +0000

The slow track approvals will take 8-18 months. How can you get a fast track approval rather than a slow track approval? Have a clean record (no convictions or even arrests), and have good evidence of extreme hardship to your qualifying relative. About 75% of I-601s are approved in general in CDJ, and the approval rate of the cases I have submitted is way higher than that. What constitutes good evidence of hardship is what I’m paid for, so that’s something you have to hire me to find out.

C-1/D-1 Crewman Married to USC Waits Years After Filing Green Card Application

immigrationlawyer4u — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 23:13:40 +0000

Mr. S recently sought my help because he was afraid a recent conviction might prevent his pending green card application (I-485) from being approved. He filed the green card application years ago based on his USC wife’s approved I-130 petition for him. However, his problem is not the conviction. Rather, it’s the fact that he entered the USA on a C-1/D-1 crewman visa for the purpose of boarding a cruise ship on which he would be employed. Instead of reporting for work on that ship, he stayed in the USA. As such, he cannot adjust his status to permanent resident based on his marriage to a US citizen. If the marriage petition (I-130) had been filed on or before April 30, 2001, and if he had been in the USA no later than 12/21/2000, then he would be eligible to just pay a $1,000 penalty on top of the other filing fees for a green card. The I-130 was filed after 4/30/2001, so it was a mistake to even file the I-485. This couple will need to file another I-130 so that Mr. S can return to his native country and apply for an immigrant visa at the US Consulate. He will have to apply for a waiver for having been in the USA unlawfully and perhaps also for the conviction. If you have a situation like this, contact me for a consultation. www.asburylaw.net

Motion to Reopen Allows for I-130 Approval

immigrationlawyer4u — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:58:26 +0000

Mrs. O has an old deportation order, but she recently attended an I-130 interview with her lawful permanent resident (LPR) husband without fear of detention or deportation. When Mr. and Mrs. O first received the notice for an interview in conjunction with Mr. O’s I-130 on his wife’s behalf, they were both afraid, because they knew Mrs. O had failed to attend a deportation hearing years before and thus she had been ordered deported in absentia (in her absence). However, her prior attorney had given her incorrect advice about the hearing, and she also had a basis for applying for asylum, so I filed a Motion to Reopen the removal proceedings. About a month later, Mr. and Mrs. O attended the I-130 interview, and the Motion to Reopen was still pending. The CIS officer approved the I-130, and Mrs. O was allowed to return home with her husband.

Green Card Victory for Haitian Despite Cocaine Arrest

immigrationlawyer4u — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:39:38 +0000

Mr. M’s green card was recently approved despite the fact that he had been arrested for possession of cocaine with intent to sell it. Mr. M came to Florida in 1994 as a refugee from Haiti. In 1995, Mr. M applied and was eligible for a green card. However, after applying for the green card, Mr. M was arrested with a large amount of cocaine and charged with “trafficking in cocaine.” He entered a deferred prosecution agreement with the prosecutor, completed the requirements, and the prosecutor filed a nolle prosequi dismissing the case. Nevertheless, US INS (now CIS) never adjudicated Mr. M’s green card application. Mr. M contacted me last year, and after analyzing the case, I prepared the necessary paperwork and we filed a new green card application package. US CIS interview Mr. M recently, and his green card was approved. If you have a case like this you need analyzed, do not hesitate to contact Sam Asbury. My web site is www.asburylaw.net

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: America Sends the Right Strategic Message

immigrationlawyer4u — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:20:04 +0000

War criminals should and will be tried as such in this global war on terror (GWOT) and any other armed conflict. That is the strategic message we are sending by finally going forward with military tribunals in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his cohorts accused of masterminding the 9/11 attacks against America. The ACLU decries this move, of course, but the ACLU ignores the fact that military tribunals UPHOLD and FURTHER the rule of law. It’s the enemy’s beheadings, etc., that violates and mocks the rule of law. I wonder how much of ACLU’s funding comes from individuals and organizations with ties to terrorism.

Changing venue in the face of voluntary departure

immigrationlawyer4u — Sun, 16 May 2010 05:13:13 +0000

I was in Immigration Court recently in Seattle with a client who lives in Portland. He (client) has never lived in any state but Oregon. He had previously been detained and sent to the NWDC in Tacoma and had had a bond hearing there. I appealed his removal case to the BIA and got the case remanded to Court due to his marriage to a USC. However, the BIA erroneously remanded the case to the Seattle Court rather than the Portland Court. I made witten and oral motions for change of venue to Portland. The gov’t attorney accused me of stalling, and the IJ gave me the third degree and then denied the motion. My client was requesting voluntary departure, and he had hired me for that hearing only a few days earlier, so I needed more time to submit documents to make a record both for voluntary departure and later for when he would do consular processing through Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. The IJ granted voluntary departure, and I reserved appeal. The gov’t attorney threatened to argue to the BIA on appeal that the voluntary departure should be revoked. Thus, all my client can do is leave voluntarily by the deadline given or appeal and risk the BIA revoking the voluntary departure.

I-130 interview successful for beneficiary unlawfully present

immigrationlawyer4u — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:04:06 +0000

I attended an I-130 interview this morning for an Mexican national husband married to a USC wife. The husband had entered the United States unlawfully in 1997. After filing the I-130, it was unexpectedly transferred to the local immigration office for interview. The interviewing officer said this morning he didn’t know why it was transferred, because the Service Centers are suppose to only transfer I-130s when the beneficiary is in removal proceedings and thus there is a higher burden of proof for showing the bona fides of the marriage. Husband here was caught-and-released at the border in 1997, but he is not in removal proceedings. The officer approved the I-130 and did NOT detain the husband (even though he could have). Now we will continue with consular processing . . . .l

Asbury wins 9th Circuit case selected for mediation

immigrationlawyer4u — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 06:13:30 +0000

The case I described the other day as being selected for mediation by the opposing attorney (for the goverment) never made it to mediation, because yesterday I received the Court’s decision agreeing with me that the BIA failed to apply the correct legal standard. Thus, the case will be remanded (sent back) to the BIA and possibly sent back to the Immigration Judge (IJ) for further proceedings. The BIA had erroneously concluded that my client’s conviction for sexual abuse of a minor (his live-in underage girlfriend with whom he had consensual sex) constituted a crime of moral turpitude. The primary problem with the BIA’s conclusion is that the sex was consensual and cannot be considered “abuse” by any definition used today and thus is not morally turpitudinous (depraved). Now the BIA has an opportunity to do the right thing by remanding the case to the IJ for my client to be given his green card.

Quick turnaround on FOIA filed with CBP

immigrationlawyer4u — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:58:55 +0000

Today I received the responsive document (only one) for a request I filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) just over a month ago. While FOIAs can easily take up to two years to be processed and appeals even longer, this recent turnaround of just over a month was impressive. Perhaps the quick response was because the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) only had one document in their file for my client–form I-213. Perhaps the CBP processes them quicker than the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS). Who knows; in any case, I was pleasantly surprised to receive the FOIA response.

9th Circuit case pending for over 3 years goes to mediation

immigrationlawyer4u — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:39:56 +0000

An attorney called me this morning from the Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL). That’s the group of attorney who represent the government when an immigrant appeals an adverse decision by an Immigration Judge to the BIA and then to the federal circuit court with jurisdiction over the immigrant’s state of residence. The OIL atty said he is suggesting this case go to mediation. The Ninth Circuit–and presumably the other circuit courts–has a process by which certain cases on appeal can be “mediated.” Generally the Court will only let an immigration case be mediated if the govermnent requests it. As a matter of strategy, the only reason for the government to request mediation is to avoid decision in the case that goes against the govermnent’s goals and/or policies. Thus, I was glad to hear the case was selected for mediation.