Immigration Court

December 19, 2023

Facts: In October of 2020, a married couple and citizens of El Salvador, came to the firm seeking help with their immigration cases because they had been ordered removed in 2005.   

The Firm’s Representation:  The firm immediately requested our clients’ immigration files from the government through Freedom of Information Act requests.  Upon review of our clients’ immigration court files, the firm noticed that the Notices to Appear for our clients did not contain the time and date of the next hearing and were deficient charging documents according to the tenets of the case Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) in the Supreme Court of the United States.  The firm suggested reopening their removal orders so that they could apply for cancellation of removal, which is commonly known as the 10-year green card.  Cancellation of removal is available for noncitizens in removal proceedings who have resided in the United States for at least ten years and can demonstrate hardship to their qualifying relatives such as U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident children, spouses, or parents if the noncitizen was deported.  In August of 2021, the firm filed two separate motions to reopen for our clients in the San Antonio Immigration Court and in January of 2022, the motions were granted.  Then, the firm consolidated the cases and started the process of applying for cancellation of removal for both of our clients.

Outcome:  On December 7, 2023, our clients’ applications for cancellation of removal were tentatively approved in the Baltimore Immigration Court pending visa availability.  Needless to say, our clients were extremely happy, overwhelmed, and emotional.

Comments:  Our clients in this case were hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding, and loving parents of two U.S. citizen children, but they had lived in the United States with a cloud of uncertainty hanging over their heads with those old removal orders.  The firm prides itself on finding ways to reopen old deportation and removal orders so our clients can move forward and finally obtain lawful status in the United States.

July 11, 2022

Facts: In March of 2020, a citizen of El Salvador came to the firm seeking help with his immigration case because he had hired an attorney in 2017 to reopen his removal order, but as of March of 2020, this attorney had not even tried to reopen his removal order.

The Firm’s Representation:  The firm immediately requested our client’s immigration files from the government through Freedom of Information Act requests.  Upon review of our client’s immigration court file, the firm noticed that our client’s former attorney made a mistake and should have immediately filed a motion to rescind in 2017 but instead did nothing and let the deadline to file a timely motion to rescind elapse.  The firm filed a motion to reopen and rescind based on ineffective assistance of counsel according to the Board of Immigration Appeal’s case of Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988). 

Proceedings:   The firm’s motion was contested by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).  The firm wrote a response to the DHS opposition, but the Immigration Judge ultimately denied the motion for the reasons stated by the DHS.  The firm timely appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Outcome:  On March 14, 2022, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the decision of the Immigration Judge and reopened our client’s removal proceedings and the case was remanded back to the Immigration Judge.  On June 13, 2022, the Immigration Judge dismissed our client’s removal proceedings so that he could pursue an immigrant visa abroad.

Comments:  The firm prides itself on fighting for our clients when there has been an injustice.  Here, our client hired an attorney to reopen his removal order, our client paid the attorney to do so, but the attorney never filed the motion to reopen and missed an important deadline, which is an injustice.  It is also important to realize that the firm has no control over immigration judges and their decisions, but the firm will not stop fighting to get a positive outcome for our clients who have suffered injustices.

October 28, 2021

Facts: In July of 2020, a citizen of El Salvador, who had been living in the shadows because he was afraid of being deported based on a 2009 removal order, came to the firm seeking help with his immigration case.

The Firm’s Representation:  The firm immediately requested our client’s immigration files from the government through Freedom of Information Act requests.  Upon review of our client’s immigration court file, the firm noticed that our client’s prior attorney made a mistake in 2009 and missed the fact that our client was eligible for a green card through NACARA (our client’s father received NACARA benefits at a time that could benefit our client too), and instead let our client take an order of removal.  Notably, the attorney who had made the mistake had been indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in 2018 for, among other things, “for failing to represent his client competently and diligently.”  Based on the mistake made by our client’s previous lawyer and the fact that the previous lawyer had been suspended for incompetence, in early 2021, the firm filed a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel according to the Board of Immigration Appeal’s case of Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988).

Outcome:  On August 13, 2021, our client’s motion to reopen was granted and our client was given a quick hearing date and on October 26, 2021, our client was granted lawful permanent residency pursuant to NACARA.

Comments:  Our client is a devoted family man and he did not want to get deported, so for 12 years he hid in the shadows to avoid detection by immigration authorities.  After being granted a green card in court, our client and his family were overcome with emotion because, after so many years of hiding, our client could finally come out of the shadows.

September 3, 2021

Facts: In  September of 2018, a citizen of El Salvador came to the firm seeking help with her immigration case.

The Firm’s Representation:  Our client had had several other immigration lawyers representing her, but these attorneys were not able to get her into a legal status.  The firm noticed that she had been placed in deportation proceedings in 1993 and that her case had been placed in administrative closure for a very long time.  The firm also noticed that because the Order to Show Cause had not been properly served on our client, she was still eligible for suspension of deportation, which is a form of relief that had been repealed in 1997, but was still available to our client even in 2021.  The firm re-calendared our client’s deportation proceedings and asked the immigration court to schedule our client for a hearing on her application for suspension of deportation, which took a long time based on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Outcome:  On September 3, 2021, our client’s application for suspension of deportation was approved pending visa availability in the next two to three years.

Comments:  The firm prides itself on digging deep into our client’s immigration files and history to find avenues for relief that other attorneys miss.

November 11, 2020

Facts: In April of 2016, a citizen of Jamaica came to the firm seeking help with his temporary residence card which had expired six years earlier.  Too, our client had already been placed in removal proceedings.

The Firm’s Representation:  Given the six-year delay, the firm could not promise our client a positive result, nevertheless the firm went to work right away and gathered the necessary documents and forms to try to remove the temporary conditions of our client’s temporary residency card.  The firm discovered that our client’s wife had filed for divorce and never properly served our client with any notice of the divorce proceedings.  The firm applied for a waiver based on divorce in the I-751 Petition to Remove Temporary Conditions on Residency application.  The processing of our client’s I-751 took several years.  In the meantime, our client had several arrests and other brushes with law enforcement which resulted in extended periods of incarceration by local law enforcement and ICE after our client’s immigration bond was revoked.  The firm worked with our client’s Virginia criminal defense attorney to fashion an immigration friendly plea.  Based on our client’s numerous brushes with law enforcement, the USCIS scrutinized our client’s I-751 application closely and requested numerous documents through a Notice of Intent to Deny (because USCIS asserted that our client’s marriage to his ex-wife was not bona fide) and a Request for Further Evidence (for documents related to our client’s arrests).  Regarding the Request for Further Evidence of our client’s arrests, the firm prepared a legal memorandum asserting that our client’s arrests and convictions had no bearing on the USCIS decision to approve or deny our client’s I-751.

Outcome:  Our client’s I-751 was granted on October 2, 2020.  The firm learned about the grant of residency on October 8, 2020 and after the firm made some phone calls to ICE, our client was released from ICE custody on October 9, 2020.

Comments:  Our client spent two years in local and ICE custody and his I-751 application was far from ordinary and it was a gratifying win for the firm and for our client.  Our client and his family were amazed and thrilled that he walked out of ICE custody with his permanent residency card.   The firm also advised our client that he was immediately eligible to apply for citizenship.

September 4, 2019

Facts: In September of 2016, a citizen of Guatemala came to the firm seeking help to apply for asylum.

The Firm’s Representation:  Our client was the victim of death threats after she tried to expose political corruption in her home town in Guatemala.  The firm believed that our client had a strong case for asylum based on persecution on account of her anti-corruption political opinion.  At trial, the government conceded that our client merited withholding of removal, but opposed a grant of asylum.  After taking testimony from our client, the immigration judge adhered to the government’s position and granted withholding of removal but denied the application for asylum.  The firm quickly convinced our client to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Outcome: On September 4, 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the decision of the immigration judge finding that our client had indeed met her burden to demonstrate that she was the victim of past persecution on account of her anti-corruption political opinion and remanded the case to make findings, if any, that the country conditions in Guatemala have changed to such an extent that would rebut a presumption of future persecution.

Comments:  This was an odd case because our client had what seemed like a very strong asylum claim based on exposing political corruption in her country and the firm was perplexed when the immigration judge denied the claim.  Thankfully, the Board of Immigration Appeal recognized the strength of our client’s claim and reversed the immigration judge’s decision.

September 3, 2019

Facts: In August of 2017, a citizen of Ecuador came to the firm seeking help with his Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) petition.

The Firm’s Representation: At first, the firm was concerned that we could not help our client since he had already turned 21 years of age, which is the cut-off age to obtain SIJS benefits. But, the firm learned that our client’s previous attorney had provided our client with horribly deficient legal representation – the previous attorney had obtained the custody order and filed the I-360 SIJS petition without the SIJS findings and despite repeated notices from USCIS for the SIJS findings, the previous attorney did nothing and allowed our client’s I-360 to be denied for abandonment and allowed our client to turn 21 years of age. The firm was outraged and accepted the representation.

First, the firm helped our client file a bar complaint against his previous attorney. Then the firm filed a motion in the Wicomico County Circuit Court to reopen our client’s custody case and asked the Wicomico County Circuit Court to make nunc pro tunc SIJS findings. After intense briefing on the issue of the court’s jurisdiction to make SIJS findings even though the minor turned 21 years of age, the Wicomico County Circuit Court made the nunc pro tunc SIJS findings.

Then, the firm filed an I-290 Motion for Reopen our client’s denied I-360 SIJS petition with USCIS and submitted the nunc pro tunc SIJS findings, even though the I-360 had been denied almost two years earlier. Unfortunately, the USCIS denied our motion to reopen as untimely. The firm then sued USCIS in federal court and asserted that USCIS abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

Outcome: On September 3, 2019, after two years of litigation in the Maryland State Courts, the USCIS and the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, USCIS granted our motion to reopen and granted our client’s I-360 SIJS visa. Our client can now apply for permanent residency which he plans to do right away.

Comments: This was an extremely gratifying case for the firm because we were able to salvage a case that did not seem salvageable at first, but the firm would not give up on our client’s case because we believed that our client had been tragically wronged by his previous attorney and we were determined to fix it if possible.

July 18, 2019

Facts: In August 2014, a citizen of El Salvador came to the firm seeking help with his asylum case in the Baltimore Immigration Court.

The Firm’s Representation: The firm believed that our client had a good claim of asylum based on a fear of persecution on account of an imputed political opinion where the persecutor was motivated by mixed motives of local politics and financial gain. Unfortunately, the Immigration Judge denied our client’s asylum application in November 2015. The firm advised our client to continue to fight for his rights and the Immigration Judge’s decision was appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Unfortunately, in November of 2016, the Board of Immigration Appeals denied our client’s asylum claim once again. Down but not done, the firm convinced our client to file a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Outcome: On June 6, 2017, the Fourth Circuit remanded our client’s case back to the Board of Immigration Appeals to re-consider our client’s direct appeal in light of the Fourth’s Circuit line of mixed-motive asylum case law.  On September 28, 2017, our client’s case was remanded from the Board of Immigration Appeal back to the Baltimore Immigration Court.  On July 18, 2019, our client was granted asylum.

Comments: The firm has won many cases on or after appeal. It may seem pointless to continue with your case in the face of repeated setbacks. But, the firm prides itself on fighting for our clients’ rights, no matter how long and how far, when we believe in merits of our clients’ cases.  Here, our client received asylum and his wife and children were able to apply for asylum as derivatives.

March 1, 2018

Facts: In early 2016, a citizen of El Salvador came to the firm seeking help for his minor child in removal proceedings.

The Firm’s Representation: The minor child had been abandoned by her mother in her home country in El Salvador, which would form a basis to seek Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) in the immigration system. The first step is to seek an order of custody (or guardianship) and an order for SIJS findings in the Maryland state courts. In this case, the Maryland state court judge granted custody and granted the SIJS order for the minor child, but refused to make any underlying SIJS factual findings. Such an order would not be sufficient to obtain SIJS benefits in the immigration system. The firm appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

Outcome: On March 1, 2018, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that the state court judge had a duty to make specific SIJS factual findings and remanded the matter back to the state court to make such findings.  The case was published as Martinez v. Sanchez, 180 A.3d 158, 159 (Md. Spec. App. 2018) and is widely cited as authority compelling Maryland state circuit court judges to make SIJS factual findings in custody and guardianship cases that request such findings.  On remand in our client’s case, the Maryland state court judge made the SIJS findings and the firm filed a self-petitioning I-360 SIJS visa petition on behalf of our client’s minor child.

February 6, 2018

Facts: In September of 2017, a citizen of El Salvador came to the firm seeking help to get her in absentia removal order reopened.

The Firm’s Representation: An immigration court will enter an in absentia order of removal when the respondent fails to show up for his or her court date. In absentia removal orders are often very difficult to reopen, and this case was no exception. After obtaining our client’s court file, we noticed that our client had been represented by a Texas attorney for two years prior to the date that our client received an in absentia order of removal. Yet, that attorney never contacted our client in the two years of his representation. The firm filed a motion to rescind/reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The motion was vigorously opposed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) who asserted that it was our client who was at fault, not her attorney. The firm responded with a reply brief asserted that the position taken by DHS was incorrect, that it was ultimately the duty of the attorney of record to take appropriate measures to make sure his or her clients are properly informed of their court dates.

Outcome: On February 6, 2018, the Immigration Judge granted our motion based on the finding that our client’s attorney of record was ineffective.

Comments: The firm does not take pleasure in filing motions to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. However, our duty is to our clients and we must zealously represent our client’s interests regardless of where that representation leads.

January 3, 2018

Facts: In early 2017, a citizen of Mexico came to the firm seeking help from being deported.

The Firm’s Representation: Our client had been placed in removal proceedings. However, he had resided in the United States for over 20 years and he had two U.S. citizen children, which made him eligible for cancellation of removal for certain non-permanent residents pursuant to INA 240A(b). The problem was that our client had a conviction for the Maryland offense of identity theft. Most likely, such a conviction would have made our client ineligible for cancellation of removal. Our client stated to the firm that he had been advised by an immigration attorney that a conviction for the Maryland offense of identity theft would not affect his immigration status. The firm disagreed and recommended that our client file a coram nobis in the criminal court. The firm recognized that our client should never have taken a guilty plea because the evidence was insufficient to sustain the charge to theft. Meanwhile, in the immigration court, our client’s eligibility for cancellation of removal was being questioned by the immigration judge who requested briefing on the issue from the firm.

Outcome: On January 3, 2018, the Anne Arundel County District Court granted the coram nobis petition and vacated our client’s conviction for the Maryland offense of identity theft. Instead of briefing the issue in the immigration court, the firm simply filed a copy of the order from the criminal court and asserted that our client was now eligible to move forward on his application for cancellation of removal for certain non-permanent residents pursuant to INA 240A(b) since he had no conviction at all. Hopefully, with the firm’s help, our client will obtain his permanent residency in the not too distant future.

December 16, 2016

Facts: In December 2015, a citizen of Guatemala came to the firm seeking a pathway to getting a green card. The citizen of Guatemala was married to a United States citizen spouse, but the citizen of Guatemala had entered the United States illegally and therefore he could not get a green card here in the United States – he had to travel back to Guatemala and return with an immigrant visa.

The Firm’s Representation: A non-citizen who enters the United States illegally generally cannot get a green card here in the United States – illegal entry is a bar to adjusting status to that of a lawful permanent resident. In such cases, the only way to get a green card is to apply for an immigrant visa at an embassy in the non-citizen’s home country, then travel to that country, then attend the interview at the embassy, then receive a determination of inadmissibility based on illegal presence in the United States, and then apply for a waiver which may take two years to adjudicate. However, President Obama initiated a program called the Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver which allows the pre-processing of an unlawful presence waiver here in the United States, before the non-citizen travels to his or her country of origin. The firm takes an individualized approach with every Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver to make sure that the waiver application has the best opportunity to be approved. This individualized approach has served the firm well because so far the firm has never had a Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver denied. In our client’s case, the firm dug deep into the client’s background and the background of his spouse to find the necessary evidence for extreme hardship, the key requirement for a Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver.

Outcome: The firm’s individualized approach worked to perfection again and our client from Guatemala was granted a Provisional Unlawful presence Waiver on December 16, 2016. Our client can now start the final step in the green card process by applying for his visa with the United States Embassy in Guatemala City, Guatemala.

July 29, 2016

Facts: In 2001, a citizen of El Salvador was physically deported based on a conviction for the Maryland offense of second degree rape by the legacy agency INS. INS deported the citizen of El Salvador despite the fact that the conviction had been reduced to third degree sex offense. Approximately two years later, the citizen of El Salvador illegally returned to the United States. In December 2015, he was picked up by DHS. After he was picked up by DHS, the family of the citizen of El Salvador contacted the firm.

The Firm’s Representation: Our client’s case was one of the most complex cases that the firm has ever handled. The firm initially sought to have our client’s original deportation order rescinded so that our client could be placed in removal proceedings and apply for permanent residency with an INA 212(h) waiver. The firm filed a motion to reopen the INA 238(b) removal order with DHS. However, almost immediately, DHS turned our client over to the U.S. Marshal’s office for a federal prosecution for illegal reentry after deportation for an aggravated felony. The firm worked with the Office of the Federal Public Defender, who represented our client in federal our court, as much as possible. After a year long court battle, the amazing OFPD prevailed and the illegal reentry charges were dismissed because the government had violated the due process rights of our client when he was deported based on an erroneous criminal conviction. Tellingly, DHS did not try to re-instate the flawed 2001 removal order. Instead, DHS placed our client into fresh removal proceedings. Most troubling to the firm was the fact that Notice To Appear, the DHS charging document, alleged that our client was inadmissible for illegal reentry after deportation and/or illegal presence in the United States pursuant to INA § 212(a)(9)(A)(ii), INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), or INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(II). These grounds of inadmissibility would have blocked any attempt by our client to become a permanent resident here in the United States. To address these allegations by DHS, the firm asserted to the Immigration Court that it had the authority to collaterally attack our client’s prior removal order upon a showing of a “gross miscarriage of justice.” The firm further asserted that our client never had an opportunity to apply for relief from removal (adjustment of status based on marriage to a permanent resident) in 2001 and 2002, and if he had had that opportunity, he would have been granted permanent residency and he would never have been deported. The firm further asserted that if our client had not been deported and instead had been granted permanent residency, he would never have illegally reentered the United States. The firm asked the Immigration Court to place our client in the the position that would have had in 2001 with an opportunity to apply for relief from removal by applying for permanent residency through marriage to a permanent resident, who now is a U.S. citizen.

Outcome: On July 29, 2016, the Immigration Court agreed with the firm’s position and our client was granted permanent residency with an INA 212(h) waiver. The Immigration Court did not sustain the illegal reentry charges of inadmissibility. Ten days later, DHS decided that it would not appeal the decision and our client was released from DHS detention. All together, our client had been detained by the U.S. Marshals and DHS for nearly two years. Needless to say, our client and his family was extremely happy with the outcome.

March 31, 2016

Facts: Last year, the firm reported that our client’s removal proceedings had been reopened, sixteen years after our client had been unjustly deemed ineligible for INA 212(c) relief and ordered removed.

The Firm’s Representation: After our client’s case was reopened, venue for the removal proceedings was moved to the Charlotte, North Carolina Immigration Court, near where our client resided. Our client demanded that the firm continue to represent him and the firm agreed that we were in the best position to represent our client moving forward. The firm made the final preparations for our client’s INA 212(c) application for relief and represented our client at his individual hearing on relief in the Charlotte, North Carolina Immigration Court.

Outcome: On March 31, 2016, our client was finally granted INA 212(c) relief, nearly seventeen years after our client had been unjustly deemed ineligible for such relief. Our client was once again a lawful permanent resident. Needless to say, our client was extremely happy with the outcome.

Comment: Our client was a citizen of Cambodia, a country that refused to issue our client a travel document to return to Cambodia after he had been ordered removed to Cambodia. Had Cambodia issued our client a travel document, our client would have been physically deported years ago. Our client was lucky, but sadly thousands of green card holders were deported by a United States immigration system that obstinately and unjustly denied their legal right to apply for INA 212(c) relief, a relief that would have provided these green card holders a chance to retain their legal status and remain in the United States.

February 22, 2016

Facts: In 2013, a citizen of El Salvador and her child and her brother came to the firm seeking help.

The Firm’s Representation: Our client’s partner testified against gang members at a murder trial in El Salvador. Prior to the trial, the gang members tried to intimidate the witness by threatening the witness’ girlfriend (our client), and her child and her brother. The El Salvador police could not protect our client or her family and as a result they fled El Salvador and came to the United States looking for safe refuge. In jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which includes the Baltimore Immigration Court, family members who have been threatened or harmed merely because of their social status as family members are an asylum-based protected group. Here, our client and her child and her brother were threatened by gangs for no other reason than their familial relationship to the witness (our client’s partner), which is a recognized social group under Fourth Circuit case law.

Outcome: On February 22, 2016, our client, her son, and her brother were all granted asylum protection in the Baltimore Immigration Court.

January 28, 2016

Facts: In early 2013, a citizen of El Salvador came to the firm seeking a solution to his immigration problems.

The Firm’s Representation: This case was one of the most difficult cases that the firm has ever handled because the initial outlook for the case was not good at all. In early 2013, our client and his U.S. citizen wife approached the firm to see what could be done. Our client had an in absentia removal order from 2005 from when he crossed the U.S. border and was placed in removal proceedings but failed to attend his immigration court hearing. In addition, our client had two DUI convictions. There was no way to reopen our client’s case through the immigration court. So, the firm petitioned Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to join a motion to reopen. Concurrently, the firm submitted a family based I-130 petition to USCIS. The firm knew that reopening with ICE would be dicey with the DUI convictions. In addition, at that time ICE had a stated policy that it would not join motions to reopen so that non-citizens could pursue the Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver. The firm filed the joint motion request in May of 2013. The request was denied in December 2013. The firm persisted with ICE and asked for a re-examination of the request in January 2014. Several weeks later, ICE detained our client in order to physically deport him. The firm worked fast and filed a stay of removal with ICE which was granted several days later. Fortunately, in August 2014, ICE agreed to reopen and terminate our client’s removal order. Once the removal order was terminated and the I-130 petition was granted, the firm filed an I-601A waiver for our client, which was granted on April 1, 2015. Then, the firm then processed our client’s immigrant visa at the U.S. Embassy in San Salvador, El Salvador.

Outcome: On January 28, 2016, three years after the firm started the representation, our client entered the United States with his immigrant visa.

June 10, 2015

Facts: Last year, two citizens of Cambodia approached the firm to see whether the firm could reopen their deportation orders from the mid 1990s. Both of our clients had serious criminal convictions that made them deportable as “aggravated felons” under the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

The Firm’s Representation: After receiving the results of the FOIA requests, the firm discovered that both of the citizens of Cambodia had been denied the opportunity to seek INA 212(c) relief in their deportation cases. The firm believed that reopening was possible based on the recent Supreme Court cases of Judulang v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 476 (2011) and Vartelas v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 1479 (2012), which broadened the availability of INA 212(c) relief. In February, 2014, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued its decision in Matter of Abdelghany, 26 I&N Dec. 254 (BIA 2014), which cemented the Supreme Court decisions in the immigration removal system. The biggest challenge that the firm faced in reopening the cases was demonstrating that our clients were eligible for INA 212(c) relief and that they would merit relief as a matter of discretion.

Outcome: Both of our clients’ motions to reopen were granted by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Our clients were lucky because the Cambodia is not accepting criminal deportees from the United States and our clients were permitted to remain in the United States for many, many years after their deportation orders were final. Now, our clients will have the chance to get their green cards back.

February 23, 2015

Facts: In July 2012, a citizen of Guatemala entered the United States and was stopped at the border and placed in secondary inspection. Even though the citizen of Guatemala had a green card, he had several convictions for theft and he was inadmissible to enter the United States. He was placed in removal proceedings and came to the firm for help.

The Firm’s Representation: Our client walked into the firm’s office for a consultation at 5:00 pm. After reviewing our client’s criminal history, it was discovered that our client had a theft conviction and a one year suspended sentence, which in the immigration context is an aggravated felony. Further review showed that our client had walked into the the firm’s office on exactly the 90th day after he was sentenced for his theft conviction. In Maryland, criminal defendants have 90 days to file a motion to reconsider the sentence. In this case, we needed to reduce our client’s sentence by one day to 364 days or less, but the court had already closed for the day. The firm called a colleague in Montgomery County who stated that the court had an after hours drop box. The firm quickly drafted a motion to reconsider sentence and emailed the motion to the firm’s colleague who agreed to deposit our client’s motion in the after hours drop-box for the Montgomery County Circuit Court. What luck! Several months later, the motion was granted and our client’s sentence was reduced to 360 days. The sentence reduction paved the way for our client to seek an INA 212(h) waiver in the Immigration Court. Our client did the personal work to keep himself out of trouble and the firm did the rest.

Outcome: Our client was granted an INA 212(h) waiver and he was able to retain his green card. In a few years, our client can apply for naturalization.

April 14, 2014

Facts: On May 28, 2013, a citizen of El Salvador was ordered deported by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) according to a final administrative order of removal. The family of the citizen of El Salvador came to the firm for help.

The Firm’s Representation: Our client had a conviction for fourth degree sex offense in Maryland. DHS alleged that the conviction was an aggravated felony, sex abuse of a minor. Immediately, the firm contacted DHS and demanded to file a rebuttal to DHS’s allegations. DHS also refused to turn over the conviction records upon which it made its aggravated felony determination. However, after consulting with their attorneys, DHS relented and turned over the records for inspection by the firm and permitted the firm to file a rebuttal. The firm wrote a rebuttal within several days and submitted it to DHS. DHS refused to change their position and ordered our client removed. The firm filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit). Unfortunately, the firm could not stop our client’s physical deportation because the prevailing case law of the Fourth Circuit for stays does not permit a stay of deportation for circumstances such as our client’s circumstances. After filing the opening brief in the Fourth Circuit, the attorneys for the government realized that the DHS’s position was untenable. DHS was forced to rescind the final administrative removal order. The firm then began the process of getting our client returned to the United States. After some reluctance, DHS issued our client a parole document so he could return to the United States. On April 14, 2014, our client returned to the United States.

Outcome: Our client’s case was decided by the U.S. Immigration Court in Baltimore, Maryland. Our client can seek the relief of Temporary Protected Status (TPS). On June 3, 2014, the Immigration Judge re-instated our client’s TPS and our client was released from ICE detention later that day.

October 1, 2013

Facts: In January 2012, a citizen of Mexico was detained by ICE – he had no status and a conviction for Maryland fourth degree sex offense. The citizen of Mexico consulted with several very reputable immigration attorneys who all stated that there was nothing they could do for the citizen of Mexico. The citizen of Mexico’s family continued looking for a lawyer and they finally found our law firm.

The Firm’s Representation: The firm first analyzed whether there was any relief available for our client. Our client had lived in the United States for over thirteen years and he had a U.S. citizen wife and three U.S. citizen children. One of our client’s children was very sick. The firm analyzed whether our client was eligible for cancellation of removal, which has very strict eligibility rules regarding criminal convictions. Despite our client’s conviction, the firm realized that our client was eligible for cancellation of removal because his sex offense conviction could be categorized as a petty crime under the crimes involving moral turpitude statute. The firm prepared our client’s case for trial in December 2012 – the firmed filed a mountain of hardship evidence and a written brief on eligibility for cancellation of removal. The hearing went very well, but the Immigration Judge could not issue a decision because the cancellation of removal visas had already been exhausted for the 2013 fiscal year. The Immigration Judge scheduled a hearing for October 1, 2013, the first day of the next fiscal year.

Outcome: The Immigration Judge had written his decision months earlier and had the decision entered on October 1, 2013. The Immigration Judge granted the relief and now our client can now get his green card.

August 12, 2013

Facts: A citizen of El Salvador was detained by ICE – he had no status and a conviction for possession of marijuana. He hired a very reputable immigration attorney. Nevertheless, the immigration attorney did not know how to deal with a Maryland conviction for possession of marijuana. The Immigration Attorney asked the Immigration Court to grant the citizen of El Salvador voluntary departure, which was granted on May 1, 2013. The citizen of El Salvador’s family was frantic because they did not want him to be deported. The family came to the firm on May 15, 2013.

The Firm’s Representation: First, jumped into action an filed a coram nobis petition in the Maryland state court. Second, the firm filed a motion to reopen and a stay of deportation with the Immigration Court. Time was ticking because ICE wanted to physically deport our client. After several phone calls to the Immigration Court clerks, the stay was granted. Two days later, the detention center asked our client to pack his belongings because he was on the deportation list for the day. Even though the firm had previously contacted ICE and informed them of the stay, the detention center had not received notice. After several further phone calls, our client was taken off the deportation list. The firm had stopped our client’s deportation with only two days to spare. After a hearing on July 26, 2013, our client’s coram nobis petition was granted. The firm then filed a joint motion to reopen and a joint motion for bond in the Immigration Court, with the permission of ICE, and our client was released from ICE custody on $3,000.00 bond on August 12, 2013.

Outcome: Our client lost everything when he pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana – he lost his TPS status, he was placed in removal proceedings, he was detained, and he was almost deported. Tragically, our client was completely innocent of these charges which was borne out on postconviction. Our client is now in the process of getting his TPS back and possibly seeking cancellation of removal in the Immigration Court.

June 11, 2013

Facts: A citizen of Jamaica was detained by ICE in May of 2012 based on numerous drug-related convictions, the most serious of which was a conviction for possession with the intent to distribute (PWID) marijuana. His family came to the firm for help.

The Firm’s Representation:At first review of our client’s case, the outlook was bleak. DHS had charged our client with an “aggravated felony” for drug trafficking based on our client’s conviction for PWID marijuana. However, during the course of our client’s removal proceedings, on April 23, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Moncrieffe v. Holder, which held that certain convictions for PWID marijuana may, in some cases, not be “aggravated felonies.” The firm submitted a brief to the Immigration Court that asserted that Moncrieffe v. Holder was directly applicable to our client’s Maryland conviction for PWID marijuana and thus our client’s conviction for PWID marijuana was not an “aggravated felony.” DHS agreed and dropped the “aggravated felony” charge of removability. At that point, our client could proceed with his application for cancellation of removal.

Outcome: On June 11, 2013, the Immigration Judge granted our client’s application for cancellation of removal. Our client was released from ICE custody several hours later.

May 2, 2013

Facts: A citizen of El Salvador was detained detained by ICE on May 8, 2012 and ordered deported on December 3, 2012. His fiance came to the firm for help.

The Firm’s Representation: First, the firm had to reopen our client’s immigration case. In early January 2013, the firm filed a motion to reopen with the Immigration Court, which was eventually granted. Then, the firm reviewed the underlying reason for the ICE detention – our client’s conviction for sex offense in the fourth degree. Unfortunately, our client had received really bad advice from his criminal defense attorney who advised our client to decline an offer of Probation Before Judgment from the sentencing judge. After analyzing the conviction and sentencing, the firm came to the realization that if our client had accepted the Probation Before Judgment, he would not have been subject to mandatory detention in the immigration context. The firm immediately filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court of Maryland.

Outcome: On April 22, 2013, the post-conviction petition was granted. On May 2, 2013, based on a motion for reconsideration of bond in the Immigration Court, bond was granted and our client was released from ICE custody later that same day. Naturally, our client and his family were thrilled to be released after almost one year of detention that was caused by bad advice from his criminal defense attorney. Our client’s immigration case remains pending in the Immigration Court, but our client now had several options available to him to get into a legal status.

March 11, 2013

Facts: A citizen of Sierra Leone was placed in removal proceedings and charged as an “aggravated felon.” His family came to the firm for help.

The Firm’s Representation: The firm took our client’s case and discovered that our client had a viable claim under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The firm asserted that our client would be harmed in his home country of Sierra Leone based on his sexual orientation.

Outcome: Based on the firm’s extensive documentation and testimony from an country conditions expert, on March 11, 2013, the Immigration Judge granted our client CAT protection. Our client is awaiting a decision by DHS whether to appeal the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals.