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

2011-07-09 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: R. and S. (5/31/2011)

2011-05-31 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.

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

2011-05-17 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: Adam, (Chicago Immigration Court, May 9, 2011)

2011-05-09 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: Enrique, (Chicago Immigration Court, April 5, 2011)

2011-04-05 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: Octavio (United States Department of State, 2011)

2011-03-09 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: Alton, (Board of Immigration Appeals, October 19, 2010).

2010-10-19 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: Saliou, (Chicago Immigration Court, February 26, 2010)

2010-02-26 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.