DEPORTATION WIN (Criminal with Aggravated Felony Conviction sentenced to 6 years)

Our client was convicted of Section 273A(A) of the Penal Code of California and sentenced to 6 years in prison. After serving his time, he was transferred to Immigration custody in Texas. Clients family immediately retained our firm. During the initial interview, we noticed that respondents father was a United States Citizen and although Respondent himself was born in Mexico; he was still considered a United States Citizen. We filed a Motion to Terminate based on this and the client was released from immigration custody despite his aggravated felony conviction.

DEPORTATION WIN (Cancellation of Removal for Non LPR with one qualifying family member and false claim to U.S. Citizenship) False Claim to USC gets relief in Court

DEPORTATION WIN (Cancellation of Removal for Non LPR with one qualifying family member and false claim to U.S. Citizenship)

Respondent, native and citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. with a tourist visa in 1997. Respondent overstayed his visa. In 1981, Respondent made an attempted entry into the U.S. making a false claim to U.S. citizenship using a false U.S. birth certificate.

Respondent applied to adjust his status as a religious worker, but was denied due to his previous false claim to U.S. citizenship, and was placed in removal proceedings. Our office was at least the third attorney working on this case.

Our office applied for relief under Cancellation of Removal for Certain Non Permanent Residents under 42B, and was afforded relief in court by the immigration judge. Respondent only had one qualifying relative, his son, age 20, without any medical conditions. However, our office demonstrated that Respondent’s son had outstanding equities in the area of academics and sports. In addition, we were able to demonstrate what selfless contributions Respondent and his son made to their community throughout the years.

Respondent now lives happily in Riverside, California, with his family and continues on his plight to be a service to his community through his weekly televised broadcasts.

DEPORTATION WIN (LPR with Two Criminal Convictions, Motion to Terminate Granted because DHS failed to meet their burden to establish that the Respondent had been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence

DEPORTATION WIN (LPR with Two Criminal Convictions, Motion to Terminate Granted because DHS failed to meet their burden to establish that the Respondent had been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence)

Our client native and citizen of Chile was admitted to the United States as a permanent resident on June 21, 1973. On October 5, 1983 he was convicted of Grand Theft, a felony in the third degree. On August 4, 1988, he was convicted of Disorderly Conduct Lewd Act, a misdemeanor. Respondent was served with a Notice to Appear (hereinafter NTA) with the following charges: Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“Act”)-Convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and Section 237 (a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act – Convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude after admission. At the Master Hearing we denied the allegations and contested the charge. DHS provided the Court with the conviction documents establishing the Respondent plead guilty to the charges. Based on that information, the Court determined the allegations in the NTA were true. At the next hearing our office submitted a Motion to Terminate arguing that Respondent was NOT an arriving alien, and his convictions were not for crimes involving moral turpitude.

The Motion to Terminate also argued that the Court must take a modified categorical approach since the statute is a divisible statute in that it punishes behavior that both involve moral turpitude and do not involve moral turpitude, thus they must look at the conviction documents in conjunction with the statute. The DHS only provided one document relevant to his conviction which was the actual judgment. Based on that the Court was unable to make any determination regarding the Respondent’s actions, thus the Motion to Terminate was GRANTED since DHS failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent was removable under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii).