• Hours & Info

    (562) 495-0554
    M-F: 8:00am - 6:00 p.m.
    Sat: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
  • Social

  • Past Blog Posts

A new Supreme Court decision makes it easier for the government to deport immigrants for crimes.

On April 23, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that found one permanent resident ineligible for cancellation of removal due to his past crimes. One issue in the case was the “stop-time rule.” The Supreme Court found that the rule was triggered when the immigrant committed a crime that made him inadmissible, though he had already been legally residing in the U.S. too long for the crime to trigger removability. This meant that the official “clock” of his residency was stopped just months before the 7-year milestone that would have made him eligible for cancellation of removal. The 5-4 decision was split along ideological lines.

Another Win for our Immigration Law Office

After a long fight, application for adjustment of status and fraud waiver granted.  Filipino Client had previously applied for adjustment with a fraud waiver with another attorney’s office in Los Angeles but his fraud waiver was denied.  Our office was able to refile with additional evidence of hardship and his case was approved in a little over 2 years.  He can now remain in the United States with his U.S. citizen wife and mother.

Another win for Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner for person with convictions

Cancellation of removal granted for lawful permanent resident with 7 convictions, including several domestic violence convictions/incidents.

Acting AG Sets New Briefing Schedule for Matter of L‑E‑A‑ and Matter of Castillo-Perez

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker announced a new briefing schedule for Matter of L‑E‑A‑, a decision he previously referred to himself for review of whether, and under what circumstances, an individual may establish persecution on account of membership in a “particular social group” based on membership in a family unit. He also announced a new briefing schedule for Matter of Castillo-Perez, a decision he previously referred to himself for review of issues related to eligibility for cancellation of removal and the impact of multiple convictions for driving while intoxicated when determining whether an individual lacks “good moral character.” In both cases, briefs of amici are now due on or before February 25, 2019.

Court Considers Both Charging Document and Statute in Aggravated Felony Analysis

Declining to review the BIA’s denial of the cancellation application, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the petitioner’s guilty plea to the charge of violating a Washington state child assault statute “with sexual motivation” brings the conviction within the definition of the federal offense of sexual abuse of a minor.

Court Rules That Violation of Maryland Theft Statute Is Not CIMT

The Fourth Circuit held that Md. Crim. Law §7–104, which combines multiple theft offenses into a single statute, cannot categorically qualify as a CIMT under Diaz-Lizarraga and remanded for consideration for cancellation of removal.

Court Finds Petitioner Who Voluntary Departed the U.S. Under Threat of Deportation Is Not Eligible for Cancellation of Removal

The Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that a failure to satisfy the warning requirements of 8 CFR §240.25 does not preclude a finding of voluntary departure under threat of deportation sufficient to break the 10-year period of continuous presence required to be eligible for cancellation of removal. The court thus found that the petitioner was not eligible for cancellation of removal under INA §240A(b), because he voluntary departed the United States under a threat of deportation in March 2001, thus breaking his continuous presence in the country.

CA9 Finds Substantial Evidence Supported BIA’s Finding That Petitioner Was a “Habitual Drunkard”

The en banc court denied the petition for review, concluding that the petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal on the ground that he failed to establish good moral character because, during the requisite period, he had been a “habitual drunkard.” The court further held that the term “habitual drunkard” was not unconstitutionally vague, because it readily lends itself to an objective factual inquiry.

Cancellation of Removal Granted for our Law Office

Cancellation of removal granted for lawful permanent resident with several convictions, including fraud and drug convictions.  Client can now apply for U.S. citizenship after living in the U.S for nearly 30 years.

Another Win after 8 years: Cancellation of Removal Granted

After 8 years in court, cancellation of removal application granted for lawful permanent resident who had several DUIs, a harassment conviction and a grand theft auto conviction.

%d bloggers like this: