If you are in removal or deportation proceedings, you may be eligible for cancellation of removal. Cancellation of removal is not available if you are not in removal proceedings. There are two types of cancellation of removal. The first is lawful permanent resident (LPR) cancellation of removal which is available for non-citizens who have a green card but were placed in removal proceedings, typically because of criminal convictions. The second is non-LPR cancellation of removal which is available for non-citizens who have no legal status. The most important thing in cancellation of removal is whether you are actually eligible to get the relief of cancellation of removal and only an experienced immigration attorney can tell you that.
Non-LPR Cancellation of Removal for non-green card holders
Cancellation is available for non-green card holders, but eligibility is difficult to qualify for.
First, you must have been physically present in the United States for at least ten years and you must prove it. The commission of certain crimes will end physical presence and make you ineligible for cancellation of removal. In addition, certain criminal convictions will bar your eligibility for cancellation of removal and you must be a person of good moral character during the 10 year statutory period. The most difficult aspect of non-LPR cancellation of removal is that you must prove that your deportation would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to your LPR or U.S. citizen spouse, parent or child. It is a very difficult standard and not everyone will qualify.
Also note that there is a limit of only 4000 non-LPR cancellation of removal visas available each year and there is currently a two to three year backlog for these visas.
Cancellation of Removal for green card holders
Cancellation of removal is available for green card holders, but you must have already been in the United States for over 7 years. Crimes and other negative factors can made you ineligible for this type of relief. You do not need a qualifying relative or show hardship, but these factors are helpful if your grounds of deportability are serious. Rehabilitation is also a key factor.
What the firm can do for you
The firm has successfully handled hundreds of non-LPR and LPR cancellation of removal cases in the immigration court. The firm will evaluate your case to determine if this is the best course of action for you. If you are applying for LPR cancellation of removal, it will almost always be the best course of action if you are eligible for the relief. For non-LPR cancellation of removal, the decision involves more analysis because it is a more difficult relief to get. The firm prides itself on an honest and full disclosure of the pros and cons of any relief so that you can make an informed decision whether to pursue cancellation of removal.
Related Cases
December 7, 2023: Citizens of El Salvador are tentatively approved for lawful permanent residency in the Baltimore Immigration Court after being ordered removed over 18 years earlier
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.
10/26/2021: Citizen of El Salvador is granted a green card through NACARA special rule cancellation of removal in the Baltimore Immigration Court after being ordered removed over 12 years earlier
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.
Citizen of El Salvador is approved for suspension of deportation after nearly 30 years in deporation proceedings
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.
Anne Arundel County District Court grants coram nobis relief to citizen of Mexico
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.
Citizen of Mexico receives cancellation of removal for certain non-permanent residents despite convition for Maryland sex offense in the fourth degree
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.
Citizen of Jamaica receives cancellation of removal, despite numerous convictions for drug-related offenses, after DHS drops “aggravated felony” charge
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.
Green card holder from Guatemala receives cancellation of removal despite two convicitons for firearm possession
February 20, 2013
Facts: A citizen of Guatemala had been convicted of two separate firearm possession offenses. He was arrested and placed in detention by ICE. He turned to the firm for help.
The Firm’s Representation: On January 23, 2013, the firm began its representation. Our client had a green card and had been a resident for many years and the relief of cancellation of removal is the one of the most generous reliefs available in the Immigration Court. Nevertheless, our client had two convictions for deportable offenses and numerous contacts with law enforcement. The firm quickly gathered evidence of positive equities, interviewed our client, interviewed witnesses and had our client’s case ready for trial on February 20, 2013, less than a month after retention.
Outcome: On February 20, 2013, our client was granted cancellation of removal and he was released from ICE detention the next day.