OC Immigration Attorney

A federal appeals court ruling Monday created the possibility that Guatemalan women could qualify for political asylum in the U.S. because of the high female murder rate in the Central American country.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a strongly worded ruling reversing the deportation orders of two immigration courts that such a claim applies too broadly. The San Francisco-based court ordered the immigration judges, who work in the U.S. Department of Justice, to reconsider granting asylum to Lesly Yajayra Perdomo, an illegal immigrant in her mid-30s who settled in Reno, Nev.

Most important, the court ordered the Board of Immigration Appeals to determine whether all Guatemalan women can qualify, a decision which would open the door to similar claims from other countrieswith high female murder rate in Central America,  such as El Salvador, Honduras and others with history of widespread gender abuse.

This is the first such case to reach this high in the United States’ court system, which has grappled with determining gender-based claims for asylum.

Perdomo followed her mother to the U.S. in 1991 when she was 15 and settled in Reno, where she graduated high school and found work in the health care industry.

In 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service began deportation proceedings and she applied for asylum the next year citing Guatemala’s poor record of investigating and solving the hundreds of murders of women annually. The appeals court noted that the Board of Immigration, which rejected Perdomo’s asylum petition, has never addressed whether gender itself could be the basis for an asylum claim.

On Monday, the appeals court said past decisions suggest that women in Guatemala may qualify for asylum, which includes citizenship and is granted to those showing they were persecuted because of religion, political beliefs, race, nationality or membership in a particular social group.

Perdomo asked the court to include Guatemalan women as a “particular social group” eligible for asylum.

“While we have not held expressly that females, without other defining characteristics, constitute a particular social group, we have concluded that females, or young girls of a particular clan, met our definition of a particular social group,” Judge Richard Paez wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.

Unless there is an appeal, the case goes back to the Board of Immigration Appeals to determine if Perdomo should be granted asylum.

Cancellation of Removal for non-lawful permanent residents is a form of relief from removal for aliens currently in the United States illegally. Cancellation of removal allows aliens to stay in the U.S. and avoid separation from their families if they meet certain requirements and warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. However, only a certain number of grants may be issued per fiscal year.

The Immigration and Nationality Act limits the number of aliens whose removal may be canceled and who may adjust status to 4,000 per fiscal year. The numerical cap applies only to non-LPR cancellation cases, and does not effect lawful permanent resident cancellations. INA 240A(e)(1)

Conditional grants of cancellation pending the availability (under the numerical cap) are not permitted for persons after FY 1998. 8 C.F.R. §1240.21(c)(1). Immigration judges must reserve their decision on potentially approvable cases until an approval is numerically available. Judges do not have to reserve their decision if they are certain the applicant is ineligible.

If the alien applies for and is granted another form of relief, such as asylum or withholding, the cancellation application shall be denied as a matter of discretion. 8 C.F.R. §1240.21(c)(2). Persons previously granted conditional cancellation (prior to fiscal year 1998) maintain their conditional status until the numerical limitation is available. They may travel during the conditional period. 8 C.F.R. §§1240.21(b)(3), (5).

If you are considering cancellation of removal, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will personally discuss your situation with you and help you decide if cancellation of removal is right for you.

The Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ) regularly monitors immigration judge (IJ)
performance and conduct through EOIR’s performance management program, and through its
daily supervision of the courts. In instances where concerns regarding an immigration judge’s
conduct arise, the OCIJ is committed to ensuring that any allegations are investigated and
resolved in a fair and expeditious manner.

Complaints against IJs may be initiated in one of two ways.

First, an individual or group may
file a formal complaint with either the Assistant Chief Immigration Judge for Conduct and
Professionalism (ACIJ C/P) or the appropriate supervisory Assistant Chief Immigration Judge
(ACIJ). The complaint may be communicated either in writing or orally, and it may be
anonymous. A written or oral complaint must contain at least a brief statement describing the
IJ’s alleged conduct that gave rise to concern.

Second, OCIJ may itself become aware of information that suggests an IJ may have engaged in
inappropriate conduct. Such information may come to the attention of OCIJ in a variety of
circumstances including, but not limited to, news reports, referrals from other components or
agencies, such as the Board of Immigration Appeals or Office of Immigration Litigation, or
routine reviews of agency and court decisions.

Upon the receipt or identification of a complaint, OCIJ will assign a number to the complaint and
create an entry for it in OCIJ’s complaint tracking database. When the complaint came from an
identifiable complainant who has provided contact information, OCIJ will acknowledge its
receipt of the complaint.

If you are currently in deportation or removal proceedings in immigration court in Los Angeles or San Diego, 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 the options available to you.

According to a list recently released by the federal government, more than 350 immigrant detainees in Los Angeles have been held in detention for more than six months while fighting deportation.

The list of names was turned over to the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California last month as part of a class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The ACLU is battling for the right of detainees held for six months or more to have hearings on whether they can be released from custody while their cases are pending.

The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement declined to comment on the lawsuit. The department opposed releasing the names but was ordered to do so by a federal judge. Its lawyers are continuing to oppose the bond hearings.

Ahilan Arulanantham, who directs the immigrants’ rights and national security program for the ACLU of Southern California, said he was shocked that so many immigrants were being held in detention for longer than six months.

There are about more than a thousand immigrant detainees in the area, and at least 30% were never represented by an attorney.

The team of attorneys is sending letters to its clients. Many of the class members are seeking asylum and some have been held for years.

One of the class members, Damdin Borjgin, a Mongolian man seeking asylum in the United States, has been in custody at Mira Loma Detention Center in Lancaster since November 2007. Borjgin said he has never had a hearing to see if he would be eligible for release.

“I didn’t think I would be locked up in the jail for this much time,” Borjgin said through an interpreter in a recent interview. “I am living here as a prisoner. My rights are limited.”
Afraid for his safety, he came to the United States, where he was detained at Los Angeles International Airport and taken to the detention center.

Borjgin, who did not have an attorney, lost his case in Immigration Court and at the Board of Immigration Appeals. The case now is pending in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Currently, most immigrant detainees are not entitled to bond hearings: foreigners that are arrested upon arrival in the United States; foreigners who have committed certain crimes; or foreigners who have lost their cases and have final orders of deportation.  However, detainees who cannot be deported within six months of the conclusion of the case may be entitled to be released.

Arulanantham said that Borjgin might have never been placed behind bars in the first place. Immigration officials now release arriving asylum seekers from detention if they have a credible fear of persecution, prove their identity and pose neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.

“ICE’s detention capacity is not unlimited,” said Virginia Kice, spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “We want to ensure we’re using our detention resources to keep criminals and other dangerous aliens in custody while we seek their removal from the country.”

The change was part of an overhaul of the detention system announced last year. John Morton, the chief of the immigration agency, said he would make immigration detention less reliant on prisons and jails and more specifically designed for civil detainees.

Since the announcement, the agency has reduced the number of detention facilities nationwide and canceled contracts at 10 sites because of reported problems. Visitation, recreation and legal access also have been expanded at some facilities.

If you are someone you know is being detained in Lancaster’s Mira Loma facility, Otay Mesa or another detention facility, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will discuss your situation with you and help you better understand your options.

After a one and a half hour interview with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), the USCIS officer ruled that my client’s marriage to his wife was bona fide, and he approved the I-130 visa petition. The USCIS officer seemed leery at the outset of the interview, because my client was previously married and pursued a green card through that marriage. Before the green card was approved, the couple experienced difficulties and broke up. However, after asking my client and his current wife 15-20 questions separately and comparing their answers, he realized that they lived together in Anaheim, and their marriage was valid and entered into in good faith.

My client is currently in removal proceedings in Los Angeles Immigration Court. Now that the I-130 visa petition has been approved, we will adjust status in immigration court so that my client can get his green card. The couple will likely be questioned in detail by the immigration judge and the government attorney. If they stay confident and calm as they did in the interview, I am confident that they will convince the immigration judge to grant lawful permanent resident status to my client.

If you are married to a United States citizen and are interested in obtaining lawful permanent resident status, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will personally discuss your situation with you and help you understand the options available to you.

We just received an approval notice for an I-360 VAWA application based on domestic violence. We filed the I-360 VAWA application in December 2008, and the Vermont Service Center approved the case 14 months later (which is the standard processing time at this point).

She married her husband several years ago.After the wedding, he began to exhibit signs of controlling behavior. His control issues gradually progressed and he eventually became violent on several occasions. He began stalking her and questioning her any time she left the house. Eventually, she became scared for her life and moved away.

After the divorce, she was afraid that her green card would be revoked. Her husband petitioned for her to receive a green card and it was approved. After two years of having the green card, she was required to file a joint petition along with her husband to have the conditions on her green card removed, so that she would become a full-fledged lawful permanent resident. Because her marriage was no longer viable and her husband would no longer cooperate, she was put in immigration court for deportation proceedings. Around this time is when she hired The Nunez Firm.

After she explained the abuse she had suffered during her marriage, I suggested that we pursue VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) which allows the spouse of an abusive US citizen spouse to apply for a green card if she can show that the marriage was entered in good faith and the US citizen spouse was physically abusive or extremely cruel during the marriage. She agreed and we filed the VAWA application (Form I-360) within a few months.

The client was extremely excited to hear the good news. Now, we will file a motion to terminate the immigration court proceedings and adjust her status to lawful permanent resident, so that she will be able to live and work in the United States indefinitely.

If you or someone you know is caught in an abusive marriage with a US citizen, contact The Nunez Firm. Managing attorney Jay Nunez handles many domestic abuse immigration cases from all over the country, and he will personally discuss your situation with you and determine what options are available. VAWA cases are difficult and having an experienced immigration attorney involved is often necessary.

The immigration judge granted a motion to terminate deportation proceedings against my client. He was placed in deportation proceedings in the Los Angeles Immigration Court after his I-485 adjustment of status application was denied.

In 2008, USCIS denied his I-485 adjustment application stating that he failed to attend the adjustment interview with his wife. My client filed a motion to reopen with USCIS; however, USCIS transferred the case to the immigration court without making a decision on the motion to reopen. My client paid the required filing fee for the motion to reopen, and he was entitled to a decision on his motion to reopen. Today, the immigration judge in Los Angeles agreed that my client deserved a decision on his motion to reopen, and she terminated the deportation case and transferred the case back to USCIS.

Now, USCIS will hopefully reopen my client’s case and grant his adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident based on his marriage to a US citizen.

If you are currently in deportation proceedings in Los Angeles or San Diego, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will meet with you personally and help you understand the options available to you.

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.

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.