RECENT CASES
Nicaraguan
NACARA Adjustment of Status; assault convictions
Facts:
Mr. V applied for Nicaraguan adjustment of status when he
was very young. Before his application was approved,
Mr. V was convicted of second degree assault on three
separate occasions. His adjustment application was
denied by United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services. Subsequently, Mr. V was placed in removal
proceedings and immigration detention.
The firm's
representation: The firm renewed his adjustment
application in the Immigration Court. The firm
presented crucial mitigation evidence that figured heavily
in the Immigrations Judge's decision to grant the
application for adjustment.
Outcome:
On April 8, 2010, the Immigration Court granted Mr. V's
application to adjust status.
|
|
American Baptist
Churches (ABC) class action settlement
Facts:
Mr. Tobar-Barrera came to the United States in 1984.
In 1986, he was convicted of manslaughter in Washington,
D.C. In 1991, Mr. Tobar-Barrera applied for inclusion
in the American Baptist Churches (ABC) class action settlement.
In 2006, the United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services denied his application for NACARA benefits stating
that his manslaughter conviction rendered him ineligible.
The firm's
representation: The firm took his case and
filed a writ of habeas corpus in the United States
District Court of Maryland, case no. 1:09-cv-03064-RDB.
Later, the firm filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and
injunction relief and motion for a temporary restraining order,
case no. 1:10-cv-0176-RDB.
Case status:
On March 12, 2010, the U.S. District Court issued an order
declaring Mr. Tobar-Barrera to be a member of the ABC class
action settlement and ordered the government to comply with the
terms of the ABC class settlement. His case is still
pending before the United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services and the Immigration Court.
Documents:
Memorandum decision, and
Order. |
Mandamus in federal court
Facts:
Mr. W was granted refugee status in 2004. In 2006, he
filed for adjustment of status. The United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) delayed
adjudication of his application for over two years.
The firm's
representation: In March 2009, the firm filed for a
writ of mandamus to compel the USCIS to adjudicate the
adjustment application.
Outcome:
In March 2, 2010, Mr. W was granted adjustment of status to
that of a lawful permanent resident.
|
|
Asylum,
Withholding of Removal, CAT protection
Facts:
Mr. X applied for asylum in the United States based on
religious persecution in his home county of Kyrgyzstan.
Unfortunately, he was denied asylum. He retained an
attorney to represent him before the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA). His appeal was denied.
The firm's
representation: The firm took his case and immediately
filed a petition for review in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Simultaneously, the
firm filed a motion to reconsider with the BIA. The
firm determined that Mr. X's previous attorney missed a
crucial legal argument in the direct appeal to the BIA.
Case status:
On November 10, 2009, the BIA granted the motion to
reconsider and remanded the proceedings back to the
immigration court. Mr. X's case is still pending in
the immigration court.
Documents:
BIA decision. |
Criminal
conviction for manslaughter and assault
Facts:
Mr. Y is a native of Cambodia and was a lawful permanent
resident. In 2005, he was convicted of manslaughter and
assault and was placed in deportation proceedings.
The firm's
representation: The firm represented Mr. Y in the
United States Immigration Court and asserted that his conviction
was not an "aggravated felony." At the
same time, the firm pursued post-conviction relief in Maryland.
In the immigration court, the
Immigration Judge found that his conviction was an "aggravated
felony" and ordered him removed. The firm appealed to the
Board of Immigration Appeals which denied the appeal. The
firm then appealed Mr. Y's case to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Subsequently, Mr. Y
decided that he no longer wished to pursue his appeal and his
appeal was withdraw from the court.
Epilogue:
Mr. Y's deportation order became final on July 2009.
Because Cambodia does not accept criminal deportees, Mr. Y was
released from custody several months later. Unfortunately
for Mr. Y, if and when Cambodia decides it will accept criminal
deportees, Mr. Y will be deported to Cambodia.
Outcome: Mr. Y
remains in the United States with authorization to work.
|
Asylum,
Withholding of Removal, CAT protection
Facts:
Ms. Z is a native of Congo. In 2001, she was imprisoned
and savagely tortured by the Congolese government. She
made her way to the United States and immediately filed for
asylum. Ms. Z did not retain an attorney and she went by
herself to her asylum hearing before the immigration judge.
The judge did not believe her story and ordered her removed.
She found an attorney to prepare an appeal to the Board of
Immigration Appeals, but it was denied.
The firm's
representation: The firm took over her case and
filed a Motion to Reconsider with the Board of Immigration
Appeals. Unfortunately, the motion was denied. The
firm then filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit, which was denied. The
firm filed a motion for rehearing en banc, which was denied.
The firm then filed for certiorari to the United States Supreme
Court. In November 2009, the Supreme Court declined to
hear Ms. Z's case.
Epilogue:
Ms. Z was not represented by the firm at her asylum hearing and
she given an adverse credibility
finding which is one of the more difficult hurdles to overcome in the
appellate courts. Unfortunately, the firm
could not overcome that hurdle, despite our best efforts.
Outcome:
Ms. Z has an
outstanding order of removal.
|
|
|
|
|
