In Re: Octavio (United States Department of State, 2011)

2021-03-09 in Cases Won

Legal challenge:

Our client was placed in deportation proceedings for failing to marry his wife within 90 days of entering the United States, pursuant to the terms of his K-1 visa. Our client was not eligible to adjust his status in the United States. Action Taken: In Immigration Court, Chicago Immigration Advocates convinced the judge to give our client voluntary departure so that he can return to the United States, this time on an immigrant visa based on marriage. Following our client’s departure, Chicago Immigration Advocates submitted applications for an immigrant visa and a waiver for his illegal presence in the United States based on the extreme hardship of his citizen wife and child. Result: US Citizenship and Naturalization.

In Re: Roman (United States Immigration Services, July 2011)

2021-03-09 in Cases Won

Legal challenge:

A conditional permanent resident submitted a request to remove the conditions of his residence with another attorney. The United States Immigration Services issued a notice of intent to deny the application and terminate his resident status on the grounds that his marriage was fraudulent. Action Taken: Chicago Immigration Advocates took over the case and filed a response to the intent to deny. The response refuted USCIS ‘allegations of marriage fraud and alleviated his concerns about the client’s marriage. Result: USCIS eliminated the conditions of our client’s residence and he is a permanent resident without conditions and plans to submit the application for naturalization.

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.