OC Immigration Attorney

The US Supreme Court released its opinion on Padilla v. Kentucky today. The Court held that criminal defense attorneys have a duty to correctly advise alien defendants of the deportation consequences associated with pleading guilty to a charged crime. The Court pointed out that the deportation consequences for some criminal charges might be unclear or uncertain, and, in those situations, the criminal defense attorneys’ duty to inform was more limited. However, the Court stated “when the deportation consequence is truly clear, as it was in this case, the duty to give correct advice is equally clear.”

The Padilla Court expressly struck down the argument that criminal defense attorneys should only be dubbed ineffective if the affirmative advice given is incorrect. The Padilla Court stated that “it would give counsel an incentive to remain silent on matters of great importance, even when answers are readily available.”  

Additionally, the Supreme Court stated that deportation cannot be considered a collateral consequence of a guilty plea.

This case is important because many aliens with lawful permanent resident status plead guilty to criminal charges without realizing that they will be deported if they plead guilty. Many aliens do not realize that negotiating with the District Attorney and making minor changes to the plea agreement can prevent the alien from being deported or keep certain relief options, such as cancellation of removal, available.

This case will likely make it easier for many criminal aliens to reopen their criminal proceedings in an attempt to change their convictions and pleas.

If you are currently an alien in criminal proceedings, you should talk to an experienced immigration attorney about the immigration consequences resulting from a guilty plea. Contact The Nunez Firm to discuss your case. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will personally speak with you about your situation and options.

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.

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.

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.

My client’s deportation case was reopened today. My client filed for adjustment of status to obtain her green card in 2008. The case was denied and my client was sent a Notice to Appear advising her that she was being placed in deportation proceedings. Approximately one month later, the Notice of Hearing was sent to my client to an old address. Consequently, my client did not receive the Notice of Hearing and was unaware of the hearing date and time. When my client did not attend the hearing, she was ordered deported in absentia.

All of this happened before my client retained me. A few months after my client received the Notice to Appear, she was concerned that she had not received a Notice of Hearing or any other documents from the Immigration Court. She retained The Nunez Firm.

When I was retained, I investigated the history of her case and discovered that she was ordered deported in absentia. I learned that she had not received the Notice of Hearing due to the Government’s error. I filed a Motion to Reopen requesting that the court reopen her deportation proceedings so that she could defend against deportation.

Today, we received the ruling from the Los Angeles Immigration Court granting the Motion to Reopen. My client was thrilled that her case was reopened. Now, we can go to court and argue that she does not deserve to be deported.

If you have been ordered deported, there are ways to reopen your case so that you can have the deportation order rescinded, and you can avoid deportation. Call The Nunez Firm today to schedule a free and confidential consultation.

November 17, 2008: My client’s Motion to Reopen was granted in New York today. My client, who lives in New York, never received the Government Notice stating that she must attend deportation proceedings in the immigration court. Because she did not receive the notice, she did not attend the hearing. The immigration judge ordered her deported for failure to appear. Months later, she inquired as to her immigration case’s status, and she discovered that she had been ordered deported in absentia. She contacted me immediately in a panic. I quickly prepared and filed a Motion to Reopen arguing that she did not receive the notice to appear in the immigration court. I argued that her rights were being violated and she must be given a chance to fight her deportation. The U.S. Government opposed the motion; however, the Immigration Judge agreed with me and ordered the case reopened.

This type of case happens all the time. The U.S. Government sends notices to appear in immigration court to the wrong address or old addresses. The individual does not receive the notice, and when the individual fails to appear, he/she is ordered deported. Many individuals do not realize their rights, and they do not fight the deportation order or try to have the case reopened. If this has happened to you, you might be able to have your case reopened.

Contact The Nunez Firm today – 949-903-0088. Time is of the essence in these situations.