OC Immigration Attorney

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced its plans to expand backdoor amnesty.  Beginning in late April, DHS will suspend all non-detained dockets for illegal immigrants in four additional jurisdictions, as it previously did in Baltimore and Denver, for two weeks.  These jurisdictions include Detroit, New Orleans, Orlando, and Seattle.  In May, DHS will partially suspend the non-detained docket in New York City and then in July, it will implement the same procedures in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

This means that DHS intends to solely focus on detained cases in these jurisdictions, meaning those who come to the attention of law enforcement.  But if the illegal or criminal immigrant bonds out of jail, they can be put on the non-detained docket and could potentially remain in the U.S.  This decision is just another part of the Obama administration’s plan to grant administrative amnesty to potentially millions of illegal immigrants.

If you or a loved one is in immigration court in Los Angeles or San Diego, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation.

Recently one of our clients was approved for a green card through the diversity lottery process. He originally came to the United States in 2000 as a student. He met his wife a year later and the couple married. She petitioned for him to get his green card, but after at least 5 interviews, two motions to reopen and countless requests for evidence, he was placed in removal proceedings. He was ordered deported in absentia.

He hired The Nunez Firm two years ago asking us to reopen his deportation case and fight for his adjustment of status to permanent residency. We were successful in reopening his case. The immigration judge agreed to terminate the removal proceedings because we argued that my client still had an open case with USCIS that was awaiting adjudication.

After the removal proceedings were terminated, my client won the diversity lottery and asked me to assist in processing the green card. The processing of a diversity lottery based adjustment is generally fairly routine; however, his other case with USCIS had been pending for over 8 years already. Initially, I told him that I believed we had a less than 50% chance to win his case because there were several issues complicating his adjustment.

We filed for the adjustment of status earlier this year. After not hearing from USCIS for several months, I followed up with them asking why we had not received an interview notice. USCIS agreed to schedule an interview. At the interview, the officer seemed to stone-walling us. She had not read the file and was not prepared. She said she would have a decision to us within 30 days. I reminded her that diversity lottery adjustment cases must be adjudicated by September 30th or they become moot.

After 30 days, we did not receive a decision. I drove to LA again and asked to speak with her. She said she still had not reviewed the file, but she did not believe he was eligible for adjustment because he was out of status. I explained that despite being out of status, the case law I provided in my legal brief clearly stated that he was eligible for adjustment of status despite falling out of status because he was still a spouse of a US citizen.

She said she would review that case law and would have a decision to me within a week. I reminded her that we only had 20 days left before September 30th.

Once again, she did not issue a decision. I drove back to LA three more times over the next three weeks including a visit on September 28th to speak to a supervisor. We contacted US congressmen to get them involved as well. Finally, on September 30th, my client called me. He was very excited and announced that he just checked his case status online and the case was approved. I was shocked as well, but very happy for him.

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 at our Irvine office and discuss your case and any possible options available to you.

We recently had a case terminated by the Immigration Court in Los Angeles. The client is married to a US citizen, and one year ago the I-130 was approved by USCIS. USCIS found that the marriage was bona fide despite the fact that the husband had been previously married to a US Citizen and had the green card and adjustment of status denied.

We asked the immigration judge to terminate the case, and after some discussion with the ICE government attorney, ICE and the Immigration Judge agreed that terminating the deportation proceedings was the most appropriate procedure.

The client was very happy that he will not be required to attend further immigration court proceedings. Now, we will notify USCIS that we intend to administratively process the adjustment of status. USCIS will schedule an interview, and the couple and I will attend the interview in Santa Ana.

If you are currently in immigration court proceedings in Los Angeles or San Diego, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will personally meet with you to discuss your situation and whether The Nunez Firm can help you.

The National Association of Immigration Judges believes that establishment of an independent agency or Article I court (like the tax or bankruptcy courts) rather than the current placement of the courts within the Department of Justice, is an essential reform. Only with this independence will the immigration courts be able to obtain the resources needed to ensure that each and every asylum case gets the in-depth scrutiny that both the applicant and the people of the United States deserve it receive.

Asylum adjudications are emotionally charged and legally complex. If a genuine refugee is erroneously denied relief, she may face torture or death in her home country. Because someone fleeing persecution may not be able to obtain documents, many cases are decided on testimony alone.

The immigration courts are a crucial checkpoint where fraudulent asylum claims can be ferreted out. Credibility determinations made at this juncture are given great deference by reviewing courts. As important as their role is, immigration courts are often the forgotten piece of this system, with funding a mere afterthought. Drastically under-resourced, the average pending caseload of an immigration judge is 1,200 cases. Judges struggle with one judicial law clerk for every four judges, instead of the three clerks that most federal district court judges have, although they handle one third the number of cases.

Dana Leigh Marks, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, July 12, 2011. She has served as an immigration judge in San Francisco since 1987.

This morning a Los Angeles Immigration Judge ruled that the Department of Homeland Security did not meet its evidentiary burden in trying to deport one of our Irvine clients.

The Government Attorney charged our client, who is a lawful permanent resident, with being removable because he was convicted of possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana in 2001. Under U.S. immigration laws, a green card holder can be deported from the United States if s/he is convicted of possession of more than 30 grams of marijuana.

We argued that nothing in the criminal complaint, judgment of conviction or plea agreement proved that the amount of marijuana was anything over 28.5 grams. The government argued that a probation report authored 6 months after the conviction specified the amount of marijuana as more than 200 grams.

After hours of research, Partner at The Nunez Firm Haseeb Omar, wrote a compelling brief to the immigration court explaining why the probation report was hearsay and should not be considered under Supreme Court precedent or Ninth Circuit case law. We argued that the amount of marijuana in question was never determined by the criminal court judge and nothing in the admissible portions of the criminal record proved the amount of marijuana.

The immigration judge agreed and granted the motion to terminate. The client is extremely happy, and he intends to pursue naturalization in the future.

If you are currently in removal or deportation proceedings in Los Angeles or San Diego, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a consultation. We can discuss your case with you during a free and confidential consultation.

Immigration-court judges “suffer from significant symptoms of secondary traumatic stress and more burnout” than prison wardens or physicians in busy hospitals, according to a 2007 study led by Stuart Lustig, professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco.

More female judges reported being burned-out than male judges.

Writing anonymously, judges expressed how tough it is to hear asylum cases and how much stress they felt by the caseload burden, pressure from the Justice Department to complete cases and criticism by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Here are some of their thoughts:

* “As an Immigration Judge, I have to hear the worst of the worst that has ever happened to any human being, particularly in asylum cases. I have to listen to the trauma suffered by individuals. I have to hear it on a daily basis. It’s emotionally draining and painful to listen to such horrors day in and day out.”

* “The combination of hearing traumatic stories and not knowing which ones to believe is what is so mentally and emotionally exhausting. It is really hard work, and we are not given enough recovery time within our busy schedules.”

* “The major stressors are having to complete a high volume of cases in an environment of completion goals and under the microscopic scrutiny of appellate courts, which may not understand the pressures the judge faces on a daily basis.”

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agreed to a joint motion to terminate proceedings for an Orange County client living in Laguna Niguel. The client is in removal proceedings in Los Angeles; however, she has been married to a US citizen for the last five years. The couple has an 18 month old son as well.

Due to an administrative error by USCIS, the couple’s adjustment of status was denied in 2008 and the wife was placed in removal proceedings. This occurred before the couple hired The Nunez Firm. The husband filed a visa petition for his wife and it was approved in June 2010. Based on the approved I-130 visa petition, we requested that the removal proceedings be terminated to allow the couple to adjust her status out of court.

The ICE attorney agreed and we filed a joint motion to terminate in October. We just received the court order approving termination. Now, the couple can handle the case through USCIS rather than driving to Los Angeles for immigration court.

If you are in removal proceedings in Los Angeles or San Diego, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will discuss your case with you and help you determine your options and likelihood of success.

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.