OC Immigration Attorney

We just received approvals for a husband and wife from Santa Ana. The couple last entered the United States in 1995 and have lived here ever since. In early 2001, the husband’s employer filed a labor certification application for him before the sunset date of April 30, 2001. This made him eligible for INA 245i. The couple’s eldest daughter was born in the United States, and, after she turned 21 years old, the couple approached me about adjusting their status based on being the parent of a US citizen daughter.

We filed the I-130 visa petitions with the daughter as the petitioner and the parents as the beneficiaries. Along with the visa petition we filed the I-485 applications and all the other necessary forms. The interview as originally scheduled on a day that I was in court in Los Angeles, so we rescheduled for a later date.

The only issue that seemed potentially problematic was that the husband was in the United States prior to 1995. He was caught by INS and forced to return to Mexico. He was worried that this would count as a prior deportation which might complicate his case. I explained to the officer that the prior visit to the United States and my client’s subsequent return to Mexico was not a removal or deportation because my client never saw an immigration judge. Prior to IRRIRA, legacy INS did not have the expeditious removal authority it has today. Before IRRIRA, an alien could only be removed if he was ordered deported by an immigration judge. The unlawful presence bars of INA 212(a)(9) did not take effect until April 1, 1997.

In Matter of Rodarte, the BIA held that Congress did not intend for section 301(b) of IRRIRA to apply retroactively. A Department of Homeland Security Memo stated that INA 212(a)(9)(C) does not apply to re-entries that pre-date April 1997.

In the interview the issue did not even come up and the interview went smoothly. The client was very happy to become a lawful permanent resident after over 15 years of waiting. He and his wife were excited and plan to pursue naturalization in five years when they become eligible.

If you are considering the green card process, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will personally meet with you to help you better understand the options available to you.

We recently received an approval for a marriage-based green card. Our client married a US citizen several years ago. He entered legally when he was a teenager, and, although he has been eligible to adjust status based on his marriage to a US citizen, the couple wanted to wait until they had the financial resources to hire an attorney.

When we filed the visa petition and adjustment of status application, we included documentation to prove good faith marriage including apartment leases, car insurance, health insurance, photos with family, wedding photos, car registration, utility bills, statements from friends, etc.

The interview went smoothly. The client had been convicted of a DUI, so we brought the court records to show that the case had been resolved and that the client was eligible for lawful permanent residency. Because the couple’s marriage was more than two years old when we filed, they will not need to deal with the I-751 process. His green card will be valid for ten years. He will be eligible to naturalize as a US citizen within three years.

If you are considering the adjustment of status process, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will personally meet with you to help you better understand the process and whether it is right for you.

We recently received an approval notice for the Form I-360 for an Orange County client living in Westminster. We filed the case one year ago with the Vermont Service Center of USCIS. In order to be approved under the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”), the self-petitioner must show that 1) she entered into a good faith marriage to a US citizen or lawful permanent resident; 2) she resided with the spouse in the US; 3) she is of good moral character; and 4) she has been battered by or subjected to extreme cruelty by the spouse during marriage.

In this case, our client married her US citizen husband over a decade ago. The couple had two children together and we provided USCIS with the children’s birth certificates. We provided joint tax returns and joint bank account statements to proved shared residence. We sent the results of a criminal background check to USCIS to show that our client had good moral character and no criminal convictions or arrests. We provided arrest reports for the husband showing he was arrested by the police for attacking his wife. We provided conviction documents to show that he was convicted of domestic violence battery as well.

We believed from the very start that this was a strong VAWA case. We had our client draft a written statement describing how she met her husband, started dating and got married. We asked her to describe the violence and when it began. We helped her develop the written statement by telling her what to focus on and helping her draw out the details that USCIS would find relevant. As always, the drafting of the written statement is an ongoing and cooperative process that can be emotionally intense for the client. She is asked to recall memories and incidents she would likely want to leave in the past. Our client did a great job, and the case was approved without the issuance of a Request for Evidence.

The client was very happy when she learned of the approval. Now, we will wait for USCIS to process the I-485 application to adjust status to permanent resident. If you are the victim of domestic violence and would like to better understand the immigration options available to you, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will meet with you confidentially and help you understand the process.

We just returned from an interview in the USCIS Santa Ana office. Our client, the wife of a lawful permanent resident, adjusted status to permanent resident based on INA 245i. She lives in Lake Forest with her family, and she has been waiting for over ten years to become a permanent resident. The husband filed a visa petition for her in 2000. She entered the US from Mexico in 1999 and has lived here ever since. Because she entered the US prior to December 21, 2000, and the I-130 was filed before April 2001, she was grandfathered in under 245i.

We filed the I-485 adjustment of status packet in 2012 and included evidence of the couple’s marriage, proof that she entered prior to December 2000 and evidence that she has lived in the US ever since. The USCIS officer was thorough, professional and fair during the interview. The Orange County USCIS officers, in general, are a wonderful group of people to work with. They take their job seriously, remain informed on new developments with relevant laws, and understand that the people in their offices are more than just cases.

The client was well-prepared for the interview as we had discussed the purpose of the interview and what to expect. Although she was nervous, she answered the questions properly and was respectful of the process. We used a translator, one of my assistants, and everything went smoothly. At the end of the interview, the officer informed us that she was approving the case. The client and her husband were pleased with the result and they look forward to being able to finally visit family members in Mexico once her green card arrives.

If you are considering the green card process, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will personally meet with you and help you better understand the options available to you.

We recently received an approval for U visas for three of our clients. We filed the U visa packets with the Vermont Service Center almost two years ago. The case was based on the minor daughter being the victim of a qualified crime. Part of the delay was due to USCIS losing our clients’ birth certificate proving she was the daughter of her parents. Ultimately, we had the parents do a DNA test to prove parentage.

If an alien is the victim of a particular crime (not all crimes qualify), and the alien helps to investigate and prosecute the offender, the alien may be eligible for a U visa, which will enable the alien to work legally in the US and adjust status to permanent resident in the future.

It is necessary to have a qualified law enforcement official state that the alien was cooperative with the investigation and prosecution. In this case, the District Attorney’s office signed off on the U visa forms.

The clients were very happy to receive the news after such a long wait. If you are considering the U visa process, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will meet with you to help you better understand the options available to you.

Facts:
In Matter of Stockwell, a 46-year-old male, native and citizen of the United Kingdom, entered the U.S. in 1987 as a visitor. He married a U.S. citizen in 1987 and was granted permanent resident status on a conditional basis. They divorced in 1988, and he married a second U.S. citizen on July 6, 1989. His new wife filed a visa petition on his behalf that was approved on September 19, 1989. He was placed in deportation hearing on July 14, 1989 because his conditional permanent residency terminated. IJ found that Stockwell was deportable since his conditional permanent resident status had been terminated. He granted his application for adjustment of status.

Procedural Posture:
IJ found that Stockwell was deportable since his conditional permanent resident status had been terminated. He granted his application for adjustment of status.
The USCIS appealed on the ground that the Congressional intent of 245(d) was to exclude aliens who have had their conditional status terminated as well as those continuing to hold conditional status.

Issue:
Whether section 245(d) of the INA (“Act”) prohibits an alien whose conditional permanent resident status has been terminated from adjusting status under section 245(a) of the Act.

Holding:
No. Affirmed IJ’s holding that Stockwell be granted to adjust status based on his second marriage to a U.S.C. wife.

Rule:
An alien holding conditional permanent resident status is prohibited by section 245(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Section 1255(d)(1988), from adjusting his status under section 245(a), but Section 245(d) of INA does not prohibit an alien whose conditional permanent resident status has been terminated from adjusting his status under section 245(a).

Reasoning:
The Board focused on the congressional intent of 245(d), which was to prevent aliens from circumventing the immigration legal system through fraudulent marriages. By barring adjustment of status during the 2-year conditional period, Congress sought to prevent aliens from acquiring conditional permanent residency through marriage only to adjust status on another basis. This way, they might have tried to bypass the requirements for removing the conditions of residence. Therefore, the Board reasoned that section 245(d) of the Act was not intended to prohibit an alien whose conditional permanent resident status had been terminated from adjusting status under 245(a).

If your I-751 has been denied by USCIS and your case has been transferred to the immigration court, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will personally meet with you to help you better understand the options available to you.

Facts:
Rainford was a native and citizen of Jamaica. He was admitted to the U.S. as lawful permanent resident on March 27, 1988. On April 30, 1991, he was convicted for criminal possession of a weapon.  The Immigration and Naturalization Service charged him with deportability as an alien convicted of a firearms offense under section 241(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Rainford conceded deportability but was eligible for adjustment of status to permanent resident if he can show “admission.” Rainford was found deportable by the immigration judge on June 17, 1992. IJ held based on Matter of V-, 1 I&N Dec. 293 (BIA 1942) that Rainford was inadmissible because he would become immediately subject to deportation upon entry.

(Rainford had a U.S.C. father. As a son of a U.S. citizen, he is under family first preference for purpose of eligibility for a family based immigrant visa.  His priority date was also current.)

Procedural Posture:
Therefore, he was found to be ineligible for AOS.
Rainford appealed.

Issue:
(1) Whether Rainford would become immediately subject to deportation upon entry due to his criminal conviction.
(2) Whether Rainford is admissible to the U.S., thereby meeting the second condition for AOS eligibility.

Holding:
(1)    No (see reasoning)
(2)    Yes. BIA Held that Rainford was admissible to the U.S. and therefore eligible for AOS; remanded case to IJ.

Rule:
An alien convicted of criminal possession of a weapon is deportable. However, such a conviction does not preclude a finding of admissibility in connection with an application for adjustment of status, and it may not serve as a ground of deportability if the alien’s status is adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident.

Reasoning:
Compared Matter of Rafipour, 16 I&N Dec. 470 (BIA 1978) and used it as a key case.
The BIA ruled in Matter of Rafipour that an alien would no longer be deportable pursuant to section 241(A)(5) of the Act for his earlier conviction, once he was admitted as a lawful permanent resident. Likewise, the Board in the instant case reasoned that Rainford was deportable for a crime for which there is no corresponding ground of exclusion explicitly stated in the Act. Further, the Board reasoned that there was “no indication in the Act or its legislative history that Congress ever intended to bar this class of aliens . . . from becoming lawful permanent residents.” Although the ground of deportability was different from Matter of Rafipour, the Board extended the same reasoning to Rainford’s ground of deportability.

We received an approval notice from the Vermont Service Center for one of our VAWA cases recently. The approval was a welcome surprise. A couple months earlier we received a request for additional evidence that made me believe USCIS was leaning towards a denial.

Our client originally traveled to the United States to visit friends in the late 90s. During her visit, she met a man and they began to date. When it was time for her to leave the United States, he professed his love and proposed marriage. They had been dating for a couple months, and although it seemed early to get married, neither one of them wanted her to leave the country, so they couple married. Shortly after the wedding, the husband changed a great deal. He became more moody and soon that escalated to violence including rape. She planned her escape from him for several weeks, and one day, while he was in the shower, she left the house and a friend of hers helped her run away. Apart from a chance encounter several months later, she never spoke to him again.

With a VAWA case, the two major evidentiary hurdles are 1) proving good faith marriage and 2) victim of domestic abuse. Because our client left in such a rush and did not gather many of her belongings when she escaped, we were low on evidence to prove good faith marriage. Additionally, she never called the police to report any of the violence and she did not move to a battered women’s shelter.

We were able to obtain tax records to show that the couple lived together for several years. We also requested that USCIS check their files because our client believed that her husband filed adjustment of status paperwork for her when they were living together, but she did not remember what came of the application. We provided affidavits from friends that knew the couple as well.

Regarding domestic violence, we provided an affidavit from a friend that, although she did not witness the abuse first hand, attested to the victim’s change in personality and depression.

The client was pleased when we received the approval notice. We will now wait for the adjustment of status interview which will be scheduled in Santa Ana later this year. If you are an alien victim of domestic violence and are interested in pursuing a VAWA case, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will meet with you during a confidential consultation to help you better understand the process and whether your case is viable.

Obama administration officials unveiled rules on Wednesday that will allow many American citizens — perhaps hundreds of thousands — to avoid long separations from immediate family members who are illegal immigrants as they apply to become legal residents.

The rules, announced by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, create a waiver that bypasses an arcane Catch-22 in immigration law. It had presented Americans with the prospect of being separated for up to a decade from immigrant spouses, children or parents who were applying for the legal documents known as green cards.

Until now, the risks for those immigrants of leaving the United States to return to their native countries to pick up their visas, even ones that were already approved, had been so great that countless families decided not to apply, adding to the numbers of immigrants living illegally in this country.

The immigration authorities will begin accepting applications for the waivers on March 3. Administration officials first announced the policy change a year ago, but they have been receiving public comments and making revisions before publishing the final rules.

It is generally straightforward for American citizens to obtain green cards for foreign-born spouses or minor children, and in some cases for parents. But if the immigrants entered the United States illegally, they must return to their native countries to receive their visas from American consulates there. However, under a 1996 statute, once illegal immigrants leave this country, they are barred automatically from returning for at least three and as many as 10 years.

If you are married to alien spouse that entered the United States illegally, adjustment of status may not be possible; however the new provisional waiver process may be a worthwhile alternative. Contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will personally meet with you and help you better understand the strength of your case.

We received an approval for permanent residence for the wife of a US Citizen living in Ladera Ranch. The husband is a natural-born US citizen and the wife is originally from Venezuela. The couple married in 2002 and they have two children – both US citizens. After several years of marriage, they decided to proceed with the I-485 application for permanent residency.

The wife entered legally using a B-1/B-2 visitor visa several years ago. Although she overstayed her authorized period of visitation, she was eligible to adjust status to permanent resident as the spouse of a US citizen. In general, an immigrant may adjust status to permanent resident only if she is in an authorized immigrant status at the time of application for adjustment of status. An exception to this rule allows the spouses and parents of US citizens to adjust status even if they are not in legal immigrant status.

We provided USCIS with evidence to help prove the couple’s relationship and the validity of the marriage. We provided the birth certificates of the children and joint tax returns among other documentation.

At the interview, everything went smoothly and as expected. The I-130, I-765 and I-485 were approved. The wife was approved for permanent residency, and because the marriage is over two years old, she will not be a conditional permanent resident. She will not need to file an I-751 application to remove conditions on permanent residence.

The couple was pleased when they found out that the case was approved. They look forward to living together in the US without worrying about being out of status or deportation. If you are considering adjustment of status for an immediate relative, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a consultation. We handle many adjustment of status cases every year, and Managing Attorney Jay Nunez will personally meet with you to help you better understand the process and options available to you.