August 29, 2014 – It was a good week for the firm

On Monday August 25, 2014, one of the firm’s El Salvadoran clients finally received his green card via the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) in the Immigration Court. Our client’s case was very difficult and the firm worked very hard on the case for over three years. The case was difficult because our client had numerous alcohol-related criminal and traffic offenses. Much of the credit goes to our client who committed himself to being alcohol-free for the three years leading up to the decision in the Immigration Court.

On Tuesday, August 26, 2014, the firm learned that the government was in the initial stages of granting a positive outcome for one of the firm’s El Salvadoran clients. The action has not been finalized, but it was welcome news for our client. More details will be forthcoming when the action is finalized.

On Wednesday, August 27, 2014, the firm learned that a very difficult appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had been granted and the case was remanded back to the Immigration Court for one of the firm’s Nigerian clients. The appeal was difficult because our client had been represented by another immigration attorney in the Immigration Court. After our client’s asylum application had been denied, our client became very frustrated with his prior attorney and sought the firm’s help. The firm’s arguments on appeal convinced the BIA that our client should have another chance at presenting his asylum claim. To say the least, our client and his whole family were greatly relieved.

On Thursday, August 28, 2014, the firm filed its brief in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for another one of the firm’s El Salvadoran clients. The firm believed that our client’s due process rights were violated and that the Board of Immigration Appeals misapplied the principle of equitable tolling to our client’s motion to reopen. Our client’s case was difficult from the very beginning because the firm was trying to reopen our client’s case that had been closed for over 12 years. There was no question that our client had received ineffective assistance of counsel from his immigration attorney who had missed the fact that his client (now our client) was eligible for cancellation of removal. Our client was deported and returned illegally several years ago before the form became involved with the case. Nevertheless, the firm took the case under the belief that no one should get deported because the system broke down.