In Hamazaspyan v. Holder, the Los Angeles Immigration Judge denied Mr. Hamazaspyan’s motion to reopen an in absentia removal order on the grounds the immigration court sent notice to the address Mr. Hamazaspyan provided to the Department of Homeland Security, an address without an apartment number. However, the Immigration Court erred by not serving Petitioner’s counsel of record with the hearing notice. Serving a hearing notice on an alien, but not on the alien’s counsel is insufficient when an alien’s counsel of record has filed a notice of appearance with the immigration court. When such an appearance has been filed, the government must serve all notices to appear and all hearing notices on the respondent’s counsel of record. The Court does not reach the question whether an immigration judge may issue an in absentia removal order if it is uncontested that the alien received actual notice despite the government’s failure to send the notice to the alien’s counsel of record. The record here is undisputed that Hamazaspyan did not receive actual notice because the hearing notice was not handed to him in person, and did not reach him in the mail – it was returned to the immigration court by the postal service and labeled “undeliverable.” An in absentia removal order must be rescinded if the government sent notice of the time and place of a removal hearing by mail to an address provided by the alien, but (1) the BIA has not proven the alien received actual notice; (2) the alien has proven he is represented by counsel who had filed a notice of appearance as counsel of record with the immigration court before such notice had been sent; and (3) the government has not proven it sent notice to the alien’s counsel of record.
If you have been ordered removed from the United States in absentia, contact The Nunez Firm to discuss the possibility of reopening your case. Managing attorney Jay Nunez has an extensive track record of success in reopening in absentia cases. The Nunez Firm offers free consultations in order to discuss your case and the options available to you.
We received the immigration judge’s decision granting a motion to reopen my client’s deportation case in the Los Angeles Immigration Court. My client had a deportation hearing scheduled in Los Angeles in mid-2009; however, the Department of Justice mailed the notice of hearing to the client’s old address even though the client notified United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) of his address change in compliance with the law.
Unfortunately, because USCIS and the Department of Justice do not share the same database regarding aliens’ addresses, the Department of Justice mailed the notice of hearing to the old address. My client never received proper notice of the hearing, and he was ordered deported for not showing up at court. Eventually, he found out about the deportation order and hired The Nunez Firm to reopen his case.
In November 2009, we filed a motion to reopen in absentia proceedings. Los Angeles Immigration Judge Latimore agreed that my client had followed the law and changed his address as required by the Immigration and Nationality Act, and she ordered the case reopened. Now, my client will be able to defend against deportation and hopefully obtain his green card.
If you or a loved one has been ordered deported for not attending an immigration court hearing, The Nunez Firm may be able to help you reopen your case. Contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will personally discuss your case with you and help you better understand your situation and the options available to you.
Led by Congressman Luis Gutierrez, the congressional democrats will introduce the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity (CIR-ASAP) Act of 2009 on December 15, 2009. CIR-ASAP is aimed at securing the country’s borders and stopping the human and civil rights tragedies that have resulted from current immigration policy.
The bill includes a controversial path to citizenship clause for illegal immigrants currently in the United States. Opponents of comprehensive immigration reform have denounced the path to citizenship concept as amnesty. However, economists have pointed out that such a provision would result in $69 billion dollars in revenue from application fees and taxes in the first year alone, and $45 billion per year each year after.
An Orange County client had his naturalization application approved today after we attended his naturalization interview in Santa Ana, California. Although he had previous criminal convictions, his naturalization application was approved by the interviewing officer. He was tested on his history and civics knowledge. Additionally, as with almost all naturalization applicants, he was tested on his English proficiency. He passed all of the tests, and the officer approved his naturalization as a United States citizen immediately.
He was thrilled with the successful result, and he plans to petition for his mother and father to come to the United States as soon as possible. He will have his oath ceremony in the next two months.
If you are considering naturalizing as a US citizen, contact The Nunez Firm. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will personally discuss the process with you along with any possible risks in applying. Free consultations are available.
According to the United States Census Bureau, one in six U.S. workers is foreign born, which is the highest percentage since the 1920s. In the 1920s, the foreign born working population was 19%. Immigration policies changed, and by the 1970s, the number decreased to 5.2%.
The analysis showed that foreign born workers appeared in every industry group in the United States. Additionally, the foreign born participated in the United States labor force at a higher rate than the native-born. Foreign born workers were more likely to be male than native born workers.
