OC Immigration Attorney

We just received a notice of approval for an immigrant visa for the mother of a Santa Ana client. The daughter is a U.S. Citizen, and the mother is from the Philippines. We filed the I-130 visa petition in 2009. Because the mother of a U.S. Citizen over the age of 21 is considered an immediate relative, the annual limits on immigration do not apply; therefore, there is no waiting period (other than the standard processing time).

Although the I-130 visa petition has been approved, the mother will need to schedule a consular interview before the visa application can be approved, and she can immigrate to the United States permanently.

The U.S. Citizen daughter has also petitioned for her brothers in the Philippines; however, their visas will not be processed for several years, because annual limits apply to siblings of U.S. Citizens, and currently there is a backlog of petitions.

If you are considering filing a petition for a family member living in another country, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will meet with you in person to discuss your options and help you understand your situation more fully.

An Orange County client that was detained in the Otay Mesa CCA detention facility in Eastern San Diego was granted cancellation of removal on Friday afternoon.

He was originally detained in September 2009 after his second conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude. Although he was eligible for removal and placed in deportation proceedings, he was eligible for cancellation of removal if we could convince the judge that he deserved to stay in the United States.

My client is a lawful permanent resident for over 40 years and since the age of six. His entire family is in the United States, and he has only visited his home country of Jordan on two occasions. Despite his criminal convictions, he is an upstanding member of his community known for being an excellent carpenter and always willing to help his friends and family when they are in need.

The judge agreed that my client deserved cancellation of removal and even stated that he was the most sincere and remorseful respondent she had ever come across. The government attorney echoed the judge’s statements.

In cancellation of removal cases, the judge weighs several factors when deciding whether to grant or deny the application. Respondents should show remorse for any crimes committed and hold themselves responsible for their convictions. If a respondent tries to convince the judge that the conviction was not his/her fault, the judge is not likely to grant the cancellation application.

If you are currently facing deportation and wish to discuss your case and the possibility of cancellation of removal, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will discuss your case thoroughly and help you understand your situation.

I just returned from a naturalization interview at the Santa Ana office of United States Citizenship & Immigration Services. My client’s N-400 was approved even though he had criminal convictions for burglary and forgery from 1996.

Generally, the good moral character requirement pertains to the five years preceding the N-400 application (3 years in the case of a lawful permanent resident married to a US Citizen and 1 year for Armed Forces personnel); however, the Department of Homeland Security may look beyond the 5 year period when determining good moral character according to INA 316(e).

In the Ninth Circuit (of which California is part), if the applicant demonstrates exemplary conduct during the statutory period, his application cannot be denied solely on a prior criminal conviction occurring outside the statutory period. Santamaria-Ames v. INS, 104 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 1996).

Other courts have found that it is impermissible to rely solely on acts outside the statutory period and such reliance must be tied into current conduct. Gatcliffe v. Reno, 23 F.Supp.2d 581, 585 (D.V.I. 1998)

It is important to note that Department of Homeland Security can initiate removal/deportation proceedings if the past conduct is a ground of deportation.

In this case, my client’s criminal convictions occurred outside the statutory period of five years. The crimes were not aggravated felonies; therefore, there was no permanent bar against naturalization. My client was very pleased with the outcome, and he is excited to take his citizenship oath.

If you are considering naturalization, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will discuss your situation and help you better understand any risks involved in pursuing naturalization.

“This rule amends the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations by implementing a statutory amendment reducing from three years to one year the length of time a member of the United States Armed Forces has to serve to qualify for naturalization through service in the Armed Forces. In addition, this rule amends DHS regulations by implementing a statutory amendment to include as eligible for naturalization individuals who served or are serving as members of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of the U.S. Armed Forces during specified periods of hostility.” Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2010.

If you are interested in naturalizing and becoming a US Citizen, contact The Nunez Firm today for a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will personally discuss your options with you and help you better understand your situation.

A client was granted adjustment of status today during immigration court proceedings in Los Angeles, California. The client was previously approved for VAWA several years ago based on his marriage to his abusive wife. The couple was married for several years, and his wife regularly drank and used drugs and assaulted him on several occasions. Eventually he moved out and divorced her. 

His case was transferred to California after he moved from New York to Los Angeles. After several hearings in Los Angeles, the Immigration Judge approved the adjustment of status today.

VAWA cases are complicated and the difference between an approval and a denial often turns on how well the case is prepared and organized. The Nunez Firm has represented many VAWA clients, and our success rate is extremely high. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will meet with you during a free consultation in order to discuss your case fully and give you a better understanding of the options available to you.

We just found out that the motion to reopenthat we filed in December 2009 will be granted for a client detained in Mira Loma Detention Center in Lancaster, California. The client was ordered deported in absentia in 2007. The notice of the hearing and notice to appear were sent to the wrong address, and my client was unaware that deportation proceedings had been instituted against him. Because my client did not attend the hearing, the Immigration Judge ordered him deported. My client did not find out about the deportation order until he was arrested by federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers in August 2009.

In December 2009, we filed a motion to reopen his case arguing that ICE did not provide proper and reasonable notice regarding the deportation hearing. The immigration judge agreed and granted the motion to reopen. As of right now, the client is still being detained in Mira Loma even though the case has been reopened. We intend to file a motion for release from detention arguing that mandatory detention is not appropriate in this case. If he is released, his case will be transferred to the immigration court in Los Angeles, California.

If you or someone you know has been ordered deported in absentia for failing to appear at an immigration court proceeding, contact The Nunez Firm to discuss your case further. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will discuss your case thoroughly and help you understand the options available to you.