RECENT CASES
News FLASH!
On November 30, 2011, the
Law Offices of Timothy W. Davis won the release of our client who had
been detained by ICE for over two years...
Citizen of Trinidad and Tobago retains his green card after ICE
terminated proceedings...client released after two years of ICE
detention
Facts:
In 1998, a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago was granted
lawful resident status. In 2009, he was convicted in
Maryland of second degree assault. ICE detained our
client and instituted removal proceedings alleging that our
client had committed "sex abuse of a minor."
The firm's
representation: The firm represented our client
throughout his entire immigration proceedings. The
firm asserted that the charges of removability could not be
sustained by a conviction for second degree assault.
In December 2009, our client was ordered removed in the
Immigration Court. Our appeal to the Board of
Immigration Appeals was denied in April 2010. On June
3, 2010, our client was deported to his home country of
Trinidad and Tobago. The firm appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
By order of the Fourth Circuit, the case was remanded back
to the Board of Immigration Appeals,
which remanded the case all the way back to the Immigration
Court. After lengthy negotiations with the Department
of Homeland Security, our client was granted parole back
into the United States on June 3, 2011. In the
Immigration Court, once again the Immigration Judge ordered
our client deported. The firm filed an appeal to the
Board of Immigration Appeals and filed a habeas corpus in
the U.S. District Court for Maryland. Concurrent with
our client's immigration proceedings, the firm also filed
and successfully obtained post-conviction relief for our
client's 2002 theft conviction.
Outcome:
On November 28, 2011, the Department of Homeland Security
changed their position on our client's case and terminated
his removal proceedings and released our client from
detention. Hopefully, in a couple of years, the firm
will be able to file an application for citizenship on
behalf of our client.
|
Citizen of Togo received Reopening from the Board of Immigration
Appeals
Facts:
In 2001, a citizen of Togo came to the United States and
applied for asylum, which was denied. In 2010, he
tried to get his case reopened and sought assistance from a
local law firm in another state. The prior law firm
filed a motion to reopen, which was summarily denied.
Then, the prior law firm filed a second motion, which was
also denied. After the second denial, the citizen of
Togo was distraught, depressed, and ready to give up.
Instead of giving up, he sought the firm's help.
The firm's
representation: The firm reviewed our client's case
and saw that his previous law firm had made several
egregious mistakes in their motions. The previous law
firm had asserted that our client was eligible for relief,
but for the wrong reasons. The firm re-filed a motion
to reconsider asserting that our client's case should have
been reopened based on a different theory of law. The firm
asked the Board of Immigration Appeals not to penalize our
client for the sins of his previous counsel.
Outcome:
On October 17, 2011 the Board of Immigration Appeals granted
the motion to reopen. Our client is now free to adjust
status in the Immigration Court and finally after over 10
years, get his green card. Our client's case is now
pending before the Immigration Court.
|
Citizen of France receives I-601 waiver for material misrepresentation
in the Immigration Court
Facts:
In 1994, a citizen of France came to the United States.
Several years later he was convicted of theft. At
about the same time, he married a U.S. citizen and applied
for a green card. He got his green card, but never
disclosed his theft conviction. He twice applied for
citizenship, but was denied each time. In 2010, while
returning from trip abroad, he was detained by Customs and
Border Patrol and placed in removal proceedings.
The firm's
representation: The firm reviewed our client's case
and saw that he was eligible for a 212(h) and 212(i) waiver
based on hardship to his family.
Outcome:
On July 22, 2011 the Immigration Judge granted both waivers.
The firm is assisting our client with his naturalization
process. Our client's naturalization application was
recently approved and he should be a citizen of the United
States within 45 days. On November 28, 2011, our
client became a proud citizen of the United States.
|
|
Citizen of Guatemala received termination of removal proceedings
after defeating allegations of material misrepresentation in the
Immigration Court
Facts:
In 1988, a citizen of Guatemala entered the United States
without inspection. He was caught at the border and
deported. He re-entered the United States a year
later. In 1995, he started the process of getting a
green card. He told his lawyer about the prior deport,
but his lawyer did not disclose the prior deport on the
I-485. In 1997, he received his green card. In
2004, he applied for naturalization, but was denied once
USCIS discovered his prior deport and failure to disclose
the prior deport on the I-485. He was then placed in
removal proceedings.
The firm's
representation: The firm discovered crucial evidence
in our client's FOIA documents that almost conclusively
demonstrated that our client's previous lawyer committed a
serious error.
Outcome:
At a hearing in the immigration court, the firm was able to
demonstrate that our client had not made a material
misrepresentation. On June 20, 2011, the Immigration
Judge terminated removal proceedings. The firm is
assisting our client with his naturalization process.
|
Citizen of Trinidad and Tobago received a Green Card after her
case was reopened in the Immigration Court, 15 years after she
was ordered deported
Facts:
In 1996, a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago was granted
voluntary departure, but she never left the United States.
In 2009, she married a United States citizen who petitioned
for her to get a permanent residence. However, she
could not adjust status until her case was reopened in the
immigration court.
The firm's
representation: The firm reviewed our client's case
saw that she and her husband had many positive equities and
filed a motion to reopen asking the judge to reopen the case
based on his discretion. The motion was
granted on July 13, 2010.
Outcome:
Our client's I-130 petition was granted and an individual
hearing on adjustment of status was schedule for August
2011. On August 8, 2011, after a hearing in the
Immigration Court, our client was granted a green card.
|
Citizen of Guyana received reopening from the Board of
Immigration Appeals, eight years after he was ordered deported
Facts:
In 2000, a citizen of Guyana applied for a green card based on marriage to
his U.S. citizen wife. However, at his hearing in the
Immigration Court, the government alleged that he had made a
false claim of citizenship. The Immigration Judge
agreed and ordered him removed. The non-citizen fought his case
on appeal for nearly eight years. In the process, he
spent thousands of dollars on lawyers. After his last appeal
was denied in November 2009, he asked the firm to help him
with his case.
The firm's
representation: The firm reviewed our client's case and noticed
that his immigration court trial attorney had made several errors. The
firm filed a Motion to Reopen based on ineffective
assistance of counsel in January 2010. The motion was
granted in September 2010.
Outcome:
Our client's case has been remanded to the Immigration Court.
His case is still pending in the immigration court.
|
Citizen of Uganda received his
Naturalization after it was alleged that he had committed
certain crimes
Facts:
A citizen of Uganda applied for naturalization on his own. In
February 2010, he received a Notice of Intent to Deny his
application, which alleged that he had lied to get his
green card by covering up his criminal convictions and that
he lied to the officer who interviewed him for
naturalization. In addition to risking denial of his
naturalization application, our client also risked being placed
into removal proceedings. He called the firm for help.
The firm's
representation: The firm aggressively responded
to the notice of intent to deny and began to immediately gather new evidence.
Within three weeks, the firm obtained the additional
necessary evidence, took our client's affidavit, and prepared a
response memo.
Outcome:
Three months after the firm started our representation of
our client, he was sworn in as a citizen of the United States.
|
Citizen of Nicaragua received a green card through NACARA Adjustment of Status
even though he had three assault convictions
Facts:
A citizen of Nicaragua applied for Nicaraguan adjustment of status when he
was very young. Before his application was approved,
he had been convicted of second degree assault on three
separate occasions. His adjustment application was
denied by United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services. Subsequently, he was placed in removal
proceedings and immigration detention. His family
contacted the firm and asked if we could help him.
The firm's
representation: The firm renewed our client's 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 under the Nicaraguan Adjustment
and Central American Relief Act.
Outcome:
On April 8, 2010, the Immigration Court granted our client's
application to adjust status.
|
|
American Baptist
Churches (ABC) class action settlement
Facts:
A citizen of Guatemala came to the United States in 1984.
In 1986, he was convicted of manslaughter in Washington,
D.C. In 1991, he 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.
He contacted the firm for help with his case.
The firm's
representation: The firm took our client's case and
filed a writ of habeas corpus in the United States
District Court of Maryland.
Later, the firm filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and
injunction relief and motion for a temporary restraining order.
In addition, the firm represented our client at his NACARA
hearing in the immigration court.
Case status:
On March 12, 2010, the U.S. District Court issued an order
declaring our client to be a member of the ABC class
action settlement and ordered the government to comply with the
terms of the ABC class settlement. Our client's NACARA
application was denied by the immigration court. The
firm appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. His
appeal is still pending.
|
Citizen of Liberia received his green card after the firm filed
a mandamus action in federal court
Facts:
A citizen of Liberia 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. He
contacted the firm to see if anything could be done.
The firm's
representation: In March 2009, the firm filed for a
writ of mandamus in federal court to compel the USCIS to adjudicate our client's
adjustment application.
Outcome:
In March 2, 2010, our client was granted adjustment of status to
that of a lawful permanent resident.
|
|
Citizen of Kyrgyzstan received asylum after the firm won a
remand in the Board of Immigration Appeals
Facts:
A citizen of Kyrgyzstan applied for asylum in the United States based on
religious persecution in his home county.
Unfortunately, he was denied asylum. He retained an
attorney to represent him before the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA). His appeal was denied. He was
unsatisfied with his attorney and asked the firm for help
with his case.
The firm's
representation: The firm took our client's 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 our client'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. On June 6, 2011, with the
assistance of the firm, our client was granted asylum.
Documents:
BIA decision. |
 Criminal
conviction for manslaughter and assault
Facts:
A citizen of Cambodia and was a lawful permanent
resident. In 2005, he was convicted of manslaughter and
assault and was placed in deportation proceedings. His
family asked the firm for help.
The firm's
representation: The firm represented our client 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 our client's case to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Subsequently, our client
decided that he no longer wished to pursue his appeal and his
appeal was withdraw from the court.
Epilogue:
Our client's deportation order became final on July 2009.
Because Cambodia does not accept criminal deportees, our client was
released from custody several months later. Unfortunately
for our client, if and when Cambodia decides it will accept criminal
deportees, our client will be deported to Cambodia.
Outcome: Our
client remains in the United States with authorization to work.
|
 Asylum,
Withholding of Removal, CAT protection
Facts:
A citizen of Congo was imprisoned
and savagely tortured by the Congolese government. She
made her way to the United States and immediately filed for
asylum. She did not retain an attorney and she to her asylum hearing
alone.
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. She then sough the
help of the firm.
The firm's
representation: The firm took over our client's 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 our client's case.
Outcome:
Our client has an
outstanding order of removal and there is nothing more that firm
can do for her at this time.
|
|
|
|
|
