OC Immigration Attorney

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.

My client’s deportation proceedings were terminated by the Immigration Court in Los Angeles this morning, which means she will not be subject to removal and will not be forced to return to the Los Angeles Immigration Court again. The Immigration Judge terminated the deportation case because my client was approved for VAWA a few months ago, which entitles her to keep her green card and lawful permanent resident status.

My client was married to an abusive husband for several years. He was physically and emotionally abusive, and he manipulated her into staying in the relationship because he threatened to have her deported if she ever spoke to the police. We spent months preparing a comprehensive and convincing VAWA case. We filed for VAWA in late 2008, and the case was approved in early 2010.

Unfortunately, this scenario occurs all the time in the United States. A dramatic power imbalance exists if the US citizen spouse decides to take advantage of the non-citizen spouse’s situation. Many US citizen spouses treat their alien spouses as servants and order them to do anything and everything using threats of deportation. Many abusive spouses beat and emotionally abuse their spouses, and the alien victims are afraid to report the crimes to the police due to fear that they will be arrested and deported, or that the police will believe a US citizen over a foreigner.

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) provides several immigration benefits to abused spouses and children of US citizens and lawful permanent residents. VAWA was passed into law in 1994. VAWA provides lawful permanent resident status to spouses and children that have been battered by or subjected to extreme cruelty from the US citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse. Contrary to popular belief, abused male spouses are equally entitled to the immigration benefits provided by VAWA.

If you or someone you know is an alien victim of domestic violence, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will personally discuss your case with you during a confidential consultation. The Nunez Firm has helped countless domestic violence victims obtain green cards and break away from their dependence on their abusive spouses.

In Cruz Rendon v. Holder, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Immigration Judge Anna Ho’s denial of a cancellation of removal application for non-lawful permanent residents. The Ninth Circuit found that Judge Ho’s refusal to grant a continuance for Cruz Rendon’s attorney to better prepare the cancellation case denied Cruz Rendon “a full and fair hearing.” Additionally, the Appeals Court found that Judge Ho was unreasonable in limiting Cruz Rendon’s testimony regarding her son’s learning disabilities.

Cancellation of removal for non-lawful permanent residents is a form of relief from deportation that allows undocumented aliens to remain in the United States if they meet certain criteria. The alien must have been physically present in the United States for not less than 10 years. The alien must have good moral character during the ten year period. The alien must not have been convicted of certain offenses. Finally, the alien must prove that removal/deportation from the United States would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to the alien’s US citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent or child.

Cruz Rendon entered the United States at some time after January 1, 1990. She had a four year old son with ADHD. A psychologist provided a report regarding the son’s ADHD. During Ms. Cruz Rendon’s testimony, she tried to explain the child’s learning disability and the difficulties associated with it, but Judge Ho continuously cut her off and disallowed the testimony stating “I believe the psychologist’s evaluation is much better than what this lady has to tell me.”

The Ninth Circuit criticized Immigration Judge Ho for not allowing a continuance as well. Ms. Cruz Rendon appeared at her court hearing on December 16, 2004 with her attorney for the first time. Immigration Judge Ho scheduled the trial for January 14, 2005, which allowed counsel only one month to prepare for the trial. (Keep in mind that most attorneys are allowed 4-12 months to prepare for trial.)

In the end, the Ninth Circuit held “We have no difficulty concluding that the denial of the requested continuance, in conjunction with the limitations placed upon her testimony, prevented Cruz Rendon from fully and fairly presenting her case. We likewise conclude that the outcome of the hearing may have been affected by these procedural deficiencies. The IJ stated repeatedly that Jose was ‘only’ four years old, and apparently formed the opinion that Jose might simply outgrow his problems. Had Cruz Rendon been permitted to offer more detail about Jose’s medical and educational issues, and had a continuance been granted to permit the further evaluation recommended by Jose’s psychologist, the IJ’s conclusion might have been different. Moreover, had Cruz Rendon been afforded time to obtain evidence regarding the schools in Mexico, the IJ might not have relied impermissibly upon her own unsupported opinion that Mexico ‘is really trying very hard to work on [special education].’ ”

If you are currently in deportation proceedings in immigration court, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will meet with you personally and explain your immigration situation and options to you thoroughly.

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.

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.

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 reopen that 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.