NATIONALITY LAW 98% SUCCESS RATE FOR OVER 18 YEARS*Top Immigration Lawyer Riverside & Orange County
Please be advised our office is now open. To maintain social distancing, we take clients by appointment only and limit capacity to two people. All clients are required to wear a face mask when they come into the office and our consultations will be conducted through a glass shield.
Certain immigration courts have resumed non-detained hearings. Hearings in non-detained cases at courts without an announced date are postponed through, and including, August 21, 2020.
DEPORTATION WIN (LPR with Firearm Conviction, Motion to Terminate granted because DHS failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is removable as charged)
Our client, National and citizen of Mexico was admitted as a permanent resident on April 13, 1990 and convicted on March 7, 1994 of violating California PC Section 12020(a)(Possession, manufacture, sell a firearm) and sentenced to 270 days in jail. The NTA charged him as being removable pursuant to Section 237(a)(2)(C) of the INA. Our office contested the charge of removability and filed a Motion to Terminate based on the fact that PC 12020(a) is a divisible statute which requires the modified categorical approach and DHS failed to meet their burden by clear and convincing evidence that the instant conviction was a firearm offense. The Honorable Immigration Judge in Los Angeles agreed and granted our motion.
Respondent happily resides in Riverside with his wife and three children.
DEPORTATION WIN (LPR Caught at Border for Alien Smuggling, Motion to Terminate granted)
Respondent, native and citizen of Mexico, was placed in proceedings on April 22, 2007, for alien smuggling. At all times, Respondent maintained that she was unaware that the adults in her vehicle were undocumented. Respondent appeared with her previous counsel, contested the charge of removability and indicated she would seek termination of proceedings. In support of the charge, the DHS submitted Form I-213, the record of deportable/inadmissible alien. The Court instructed Respondent to file a Motion to Terminate and any objections to the form I-213 by November 6, 2007. On November 7, 2007, the Respondent’s attorney filed a Motion to Terminate Proceedings, but did not specifically object to the I-213. Respondent’s prior counsel never consulted with Respondent about whether to object to the I-213. Instead, the motion merely presented Respondent’s account of events, but did not provide a legal argument. On December 6, 2007, the DHS filed an Opposition to the Motion to Terminate. It argued that the Form I-213 established Respondent’s removability as charged. Since Respondent did not file any objections to the I-213, the DHS asserted that the Court should admit the I-213. The Court concluded that DHS made a prima facie showing of removability, reasoning that Respondent did not object to the I-213. Consequently, it admitted the item into evidence. The Court accepted the narrative offered by that document. It stated that based on the DHS’s evidence Respondent drove the vehicle, allowed the undocumented passengers to enter the vehicle despite knowing that the documents had been purchased. The Form I-213 further indicated that during the primary inspection, Respondent claimed that all minors in the vehicle were her children. Based on the foregoing, the Court denied Respondent’s Motion to Terminate, as Respondent lacked sufficient evidence to suppress the I-213.
In 2011, Respondent retained our office to represent her. Our office immediately requested the FOIA of Respondent’s videotaped statement. The FOIA coordinator would not provide our office with the videotaped sworn statement. We then requested the Honorable Immigration Judge to subpoena a request. After receiving the sworn video statement, review of the sworn videotape revealed that Respondent at all times denied knowledge of the smuggling act after repeated questioning. We then filed another Motion to Terminate, and ultimately, the government agreed to have the case terminated.
During the duration of Respondents case, she suffered from extreme depression, anxiety disorder and a plethora of other medical complications- all derived from the stress imposed on her after placed in proceedings.
Had Respondent originally hired an experienced attorney, this trauma could have been avoided. Our office investigated all facts and tentatively listened to Respondent’s version of the facts. A careful review of the videotaped sworn statement not only corroborated our client’s story, but made it very clear- Respondent was not an alien smuggler!
DEPORTATION WIN (LPR Caught At Border For Alien Smuggling)
Respondent was detained at the border after being charged with smuggling aliens in the United States in San Ysidro, California. Upon contacting our office, we immediately contacted (ICE) and had her released on a $5000 bond. We later filed Cancellation for Removal for Lawful Permanent Residents (LPR) with the Immigration Judge in San Diego, California and based it on the hardship her children would suffer. Her waiver was granted. Respondent now lives in Riverside with her five children. *Please note that had Respondent been CONVICTED of alien smuggling, she would not have been afforded this relief. Cancellation of Removal for Lawful Permanent Residents (LPR) is only available if :the Respondent :(1). Has been an LPR for 5 years;(2) Has resided in the U.S. continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status; and (3) Has not been convicted of any aggravated felony.
