DERIVATIVE CITIZENSHIP WIN (Respondent convicted of an aggravated felony and sentenced to ten 10 years in state prison obtained citizenship)
Respondent, native and citizen of Mexico, was convicted of an aggravated felony- conspiracy to sell drugs- and sentenced to 10 years in state prison. A year prior to completing his term, our office was contacted by his family members to determine whether Respondent had any immigration relief. After an extensive consultation, our office determined that Respondent was a derivative citizen because of his Grandmother’s birth in the U.S.
Our office immediately gathered all relevant documentation, and filed for his Naturalization in 2010. Immigration officers misplaced Respondent’s file, but our office was able to trace the money order used to pay for the application to prove that in fact it was cashed by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services office at Los Angeles five days after the application was filed.
Ms. Arzani made several trips to Los Angeles to locate Respondent’s file. Since Respondent was incarcerated in Texas, a request was made to transfer his file to Texas.
Due to the complexity of this case, it took some time before Respondent’s N-600 application was approved. Respondent’s application was approved prior to his release from state prison. Therefore, Respondent was immediately released after serving his time, and not placed on immigration hold. Now, Respondent awaits the issuance of his certificate of citizenship.
This case is a prime example of the issues with unraveling government bureaucracies and procedures, as well as, hiring a competent, experienced attorney that looks for all avenues of relief beyond the face of what is immediately apparent. At a first glance, Respondent had absolutely no relief, but a more in depth analysis revealed that Respondent was a derivative citizen given his grandmother’s birth in the U.S.
DEPORTATION WIN (Criminal With Two Previous Deportations)
Our client was served with a Notice to Appear charging him removal from the United States. Although our client was born in Mexico, his father was born in the Philippines on July 17, 1945 and moved to the United States in 1957. His father naturalized on March 9, 1962. Client was born on February 28, 1972 and by the time of the clients birth, his father had lived in this country for approximately fifteen years (since 1952) and thirteen of those years were after he had turned fourteen years of age. Since our client was legitimated before the age of 21 and his father met the 5 and 14 year residency requirement, a Motion to Terminate was granted based on our client being a U.S.C. derived from his father. Please note that this client had 2 PREVIOUS DEPORTATION CASES! Had his previous attorney’s investigated his case by looking into his family history, they would have discovered he is in fact a US Citizen!
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)
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)
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).