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.

Chicago Immigration Advocates Gets Another Win at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

2021-03-05 in Cases Won
Chicago Immigration Advocates’ Attorney Christine P. Varghese on September 8, 2020 won a Petition for Review before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for a Cameroonian citizen whose claim of withholding of removal was denied by the lower Immigration courts . Tandap v. Barr, 2020 WL 5405603 (7th Circuit).
Our client, who had a previous deportation order, hired Ms. Varghese to reopen his immigration proceedings before the Board of Immigration Appeals in order to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the U.N. Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) based on the Cameroonian government’s growing mistreatment of the Anglophone minority group to which he belonged. Attorney Varghese successfully argued that the Government made serious reversible errors in its decision–namely that the Board improperly used the incorrect standard of proof and improperly ignored the expert report as well the client’s arguments for CAT protection. The Seventh Circuit vacated the Board’s decision remanding it to the Board to correct its errors.
Chicago Immigration Advocates Law Offices continues to demonstrate, through the efforts of Ms. Varghese, that no matter how complex your case might appear to be, if any lawyers are going to win your case, it will be Chicago Immigration Advocates.