In Re: Alton, (Board of Immigration Appeals, October 19, 2010).

2021-03-09 in Cases Won

Legal challenge:

Our client was previously ordered removed by the Immigration Court and retinalized to another attorney to reopen his case. The Immigration Court denied the motion because the attorney did not obtain a signature on the client’s affidavit, and this resulted in the immediate execution of the deportation order. Action Taken: Upon being hired, we appealed the decision of the Immigration Court based on a judicial error in denying the motion to reopen and we also filed a new motion to reopen the case on the basis of the ineffectiveness of the attorney that our client had. previously. Outcome: The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed with Chicago Immigration Advocates and reopened our client’s Immigration case. Our client is currently in the process of adjusting his status to lawful permanent resident.

In Re: Carlos, (Chicago Immigration Court, July 13, 2011)

2021-03-09 in Cases Won

Legal challenge:

Our client was charged with deportation for the commission of two crimes of moral turpitude after entering the United States. Action Taken: Chicago Immigration Advocates filed a motion to stay the removal proceedings on the grounds that his first conviction was not a crime of moral clumsiness and was also a protected expression under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. .. Result: The Immigration Court agreed, found that our client’s first conviction was not a crime of moral clumsiness and ended the deportation case against our client. Our client remains in the United States to this day as a lawful permanent resident.

In Re: Irenio, (Chicago Immigration Court, May 17, 2011)

2021-03-09 in Cases Won

Legal challenge:

Our client faced termination of his permanent resident status and deportation for his entry into an allegedly fraudulent marriage. Action Taken: Chicago Immigration Advocates stated at trial that the legal provisions by which USICE sought to revoke and deport our client did not give USICE authorization to do so. Result: The Immigration Court ruled that USICE improperly charged our client and, furthermore, failed to fulfill its obligation to establish that our client’s marriage was fraudulent. Today, our client is once again a legal permanent resident.

In Re: Enrique, (Chicago Immigration Court, April 5, 2011)

2021-03-09 in Cases Won

Legal challenge:

Our client was charged with deportation because he entered the United States without inspection. Action Taken: Chicago Immigration Advocates submitted an application for the U Visa because he was a victim of domestic violence by his wife who is a citizen of the United States. We also file a waiver of inadmissibility for your unlawful presence in the United States. Result: United States Immigration Services approved the pardon and U Visa applications. The Immigration Court closed our client’s deportation case. Our client is in the United States on a U Visa and awaits adjustment of status.

In Re: Adam, (Chicago Immigration Court, May 9, 2011)

2021-03-09 in Cases Won

Legal challenge:

Our client was charged with deportation for a crime related to possession of a controlled substance. He was a citizen and national of Ukraine, who entered the United States as a Legal Permanent Resident. Action Taken: Chicago Immigration Advocates submitted an application for cancellation of removal for certain permanent residents on behalf of our client. Results: The Immigration Court found that our client deserves a favorable exercise of discretion based on his long residence in the United States, his considerable family connections and other favorable factors. Our client remains in the United States to this day as a lawful permanent resident.

In Re: Carlos, (Chicago Immigration Court, July 13, 2011)

2021-03-09 in Cases Won

Legal challenge:

Our client was charged with deportation for the commission of two crimes of moral turpitude after entering the United States. Action Taken: Chicago Immigration Advocates filed a motion to stay the removal proceedings on the grounds that his first conviction was not a crime of moral clumsiness and was also a protected expression under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. .. Result: The Immigration Court agreed, found that our client’s first conviction was not a crime of moral clumsiness and ended the deportation case against our client. Our client remains in the United States to this day as a lawful permanent resident.

In Re: Saliou, (Chicago Immigration Court, February 26, 2010)

2021-03-09 in Cases Won

Legal challenge:

Our client was charged with deportation for a crime related to possession of a controlled substance. He was a citizen and national of Senegal, who entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident. Action Taken: Chicago Immigration Advocates first filed a motion to close, in order to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the government. I also file an application for asylum and withholding of deportation on behalf of our client based on his fear of returning to his home country on the basis of his homosexuality. Result: The Immigration Court found that our client had established that he was a member of the homosexual community and would likely face persecution because of his homosexuality if he were returned to Senegal.

Success in Federal Court – Defending Illegal Re-entry

2021-03-09 in Cases Won

October 2, 2015, Chicago, Illinois –  Since 2013, our Client was facing criminal charges in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, for illegally re-entering the U.S. after having committed an aggravated felony. Illegal re-entry can carry a sentence of up to 20 years imprisonment. Under the sentencing guidelines, as calculated by the U.S. Probation Department, our Client was facing 46 – 57 months in federal prison. On September 17, 2015, the Judge sentenced the Defendant to only 15 months. Through several motions and arguments challenging the government’s assertions, the Judge agreed with defense counsel that a guidelines sentence would be unfair. Defense counsel for the Defendant were Carla I. Espinoza and James C. Ten Broeck Jr. from Chicago Immigration Advocates Law Offices.

This was a hard-fought and lengthy case since we had originally challenged the validity of our Client’s deportation orders uncovering a number of irregularities with his 1993 and 1994 deportation hearings, including a misleading translation. This was an important litigation strategy because it exposed the unfairness many immigrants face during deportation proceedings and allowed the Judge to consider it in favor of our Client. While the Judge ultimately decided that the deportation orders were valid, he acknowledged that defense counsel had challenged him to consider aspects of the law that were new to him. Having carefully weighed all possible defenses after this ruling, we advised our Client that his chances to prevail at trial were low and that he would benefit more by accepting a conditional plea of guilty so that we could focus on sentence reductions.

After the plea, adverse facts were brought to the Judge’s attention by the probation department in preparing its pre-sentence memorandum asserting that criminal history points ought to apply – when, in fact, none were added by the U.S. Attorneys’ Office – because the Defendant had allegedly re-entered the U.S. at a point in time much closer to when he committed the aggravated felony. Attorneys at Chicago Immigration Advocates argued that reliance on that factor would violate due process of law and confidentiality principles and, consequently, we were able to reduce the sentencing guideline calculation by 5 months and then persuade the Judge that an even lower sentence was appropriate.

The biggest part of this case was that the Judge was persuaded to go lower than what the sentencing guidelines recommended by at least 31 months. At oral arguments Attorney Carla I. Espinoza persuaded the Judge to reduce the sentence in light of Defendant’s motivations in returning to the U.S., acceptance of responsibility and rehabilitation, family ties to the U.S., and attempts to secure legal status in the U.S. The Judge agreed that a sentence within the guidelines range would be unfair to the Defendant in light of the totality of the circumstances. At the conclusion of the hearing the Judge told the Defendant: “[t]he attorneys have done a remarkable job – they had me think about things I had never thought of before.”

We are happy to share this success story with you because it demonstrates the importance of having good attorneys to represent you in any legal proceeding, but especially in illegal re-entry proceedings where the stakes are high. For this Client, our diligent representation meant the difference of serving 31 months (2 years, 7 months) less in federal prison than he would have likely served if his previous attorney continued to represent him.

In Re: R. and S. (5/31/2011)

2021-03-09 in Cases Won

In Re: -, R & S, (Chicago Immigration Court, May 31, 2011). Legal challenge:Our clients, husband and wife, were detained, paroled and released in the United States at the Canadian border, they stated fear of returning to their country of origin. ACTION TAKEN: Chicago Immigration Advocates filed applications for asylum, withholding of deportation, and deferral of deportation in accordance with the Convention Against Torture based on their fear of returning to their country on the basis of religious persecution. Result: The Immigration Court considered that our clients established that they were practicing Christianity, and that in the future, they will be persecuted by the government of their country in the Middle East. The Immigration Court also found that clients were previously persecuted due to their religious beliefs in their home country.

Appeals

2021-03-09 in Immigration Court

An appeal from the immigration judge’s decision must be filed at the Board of Immigration Appeals. This must be done within 30 days of the decision of the immigration judge. There are no exceptions. If you do not file the Notice of Appeal within 30 days, the decision of the judge becomes final and nothing more can be done except in unusual circumstances.

During an appeal, the most important thing a deportation attorney can do, besides attempting to convince the Board that the immigration judge was wrong, is to continue to preserve any issues of fact and/or law for the record so that if your deportation matter is appealed the circuit court of appeals, your immigration attorney can attempt to distinguish your case from previous cases and, thus, obtain a reversal.

The board of judges convenes in Falls Church, Virginia, outside of the nation’s capital in Washington, D.C. These judges are employees of the U.S. Attorney General, so that a decision from this board is, similar to the decision of an immigration judge, an agency decision. In light of the relationship of the board to the Attorney General, it is less likely to reverse a decision of an immigration judge than a Circuit Court of Appeals.

Circuit Courts of Appeals

In this appeal, you are able to bring the case to the attention of judges who are not employees of the U.S. Attorney General. These judges have lifetime appointments to the court and, thus, they are less likely to be swayed by politics and be indebted to anyone in the government. An appeal to this tribunal must be filed within 30 days of the Board’s decision. The record is usually filed by the government within 40 days of the filing of the notice of appeal, unless the government requests an extension. In this appeal, you can expect it to take anywhere from 8 months to 1 ½ years, if you are not detained, and a much shorter period of time if you are detained.

United States Supreme Court

An appeal to this Court is an option, but it is not your right. In other words, the Supreme Court takes cases at its discretion and may reject your case since it may think that it does not carry enough importance. The main factor which the Supreme Court considers in an immigration case is whether if enough circuit courts have decided the same or similar issue and decided it differently, thus requiring a decision that is uniform throughout the country.