Posted on April 2, 2017 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
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
Posted on September 14, 2016 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
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.
Posted on April 21, 2016 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
Application for Cancellation of Removal granted for lawful permanent resident with nearly 30 years in the U.S. and a disabled daughter but with a conviction for possession of a controlled substance from 2006, an outstanding warrant for 10 years and an arrest for alien smuggling.
Posted on January 23, 2016 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
Cancellation of Removal application approved for 20-year-old client with a federal felony conviction for manufacturing explosives materials. Our office was able to reach an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security and our client’s application was approved without the need for any testimony and Client was released from custody after only two hearings, just in time for the holidays.
Posted on January 23, 2016 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
Cancellation of Removal application approved for 20-year-old client with a federal felony conviction for manufacturing explosives materials. Our office was able to reach an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security and our client’s application was approved without the need for any testimony and Client was released from custody after only two hearings, just in time for the holidays.
Posted on November 5, 2015 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
Matter of CASTREJON-COLINO, 26 I&N Dec. 667 (BIA 2015)
(1) Where an alien has the right to a hearing before an Immigration Judge, a voluntary departure or return does not break the alien’s continuous physical presence for purposes of cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A) (2012), in the absence of evidence that he or she was informed of and waived the right to such a hearing. Matter of Avilez, 23 I&N Dec. 799 (BIA 2005), clarified.
(2) Evidence that an alien who had the right to a hearing before an Immigration Judge was fingerprinted and/or photographed before being allowed to voluntarily depart is not enough, in itself, to demonstrate a waiver of the right to a hearing or to show a process of sufficient formality to break continuous physical presence.
Posted on November 3, 2015 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
Today, the BIA issued two precedent decisions addressing the issue of whether evidence that photographs and fingerprints were taken in conjunction with a noncitizen’s voluntary departure or return constitutes a formal, documented process sufficient to break continuous physical presence for purposes of establishing eligibility for cancellation of removal, where the noncitizen had the right to appear before an Immigration Judge but was not informed of that right. In the first decision, the BIA held that such evidence was not sufficient, in the absence of evidence that the noncitizen was informed of and waived the right to a hearing. In the second decision, the BIA found that this rule applies regardless of whether the encounter in which the noncitizen was photographed and fingerprinted occurred at or near the border.
Posted on October 19, 2015 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
The Ninth Circuit upheld the Board of Immigration Appeals, holding that the failure of a Notice to Appear (NTA) to specify the date and location of a removal hearing has no effect on the stop-time rule. Accordingly, the court found that the petitioner, who had not accrued the requisite period of continuous physical presence by the time he was served with the NTA in his removal proceeding, was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal.
Posted on October 19, 2015 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
The First Circuit upheld the Board of Immigration Appeals, finding that the petitioner was not eligible for cancellation of removal, because he had failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his 2006 assault conviction was not a “crime of domestic violence.”
Brian D. Lerner Immigration Attorney & Deportation Lawyer Blog 