• Hours & Info

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

  • https://api.whatsapp.com/send?phone=13104885414

Chapter 7: Bankruptcy

Where different debtors filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy at a time when the value of the equity in their homes was less than the amount they were eligible to claim, respectively, under the federal or Arizona homestead exemptions, leaving no value in the homestead properties that could be claimed by the bankruptcy estate, but the value of the properties subsequently increased before the cases were closed so that the debtors had equity in excess of their exemptions, the trustee could force a sale of the properties in order to recover the excess equity because the exemptions allowed the debtors to claim an interest in dollar amounts, not specific properties. The fact that the value of the claimed exemption plus encumbrances equaled market value at the time of filing did not remove the entire asset from the estate. Assuming estoppel is available as a remedy in bankruptcy proceedings, debtor could not estop trustee from selling debtor’s home where debtor made no showing that the trustee–who left the case open for years–intended for the debtor to act as if he would be able to retain the property permanently; that the debtor had a right to believe the trustee, by her inaction, intended the debtor to believe she had released all rights to the homestead; or that the debtor was ignorant of the true facts. Any duty to police misconduct by the trustee fell upon the U.S. Trustee in debtor’s district, and abandonment of an asset is not a remedy for a trustee’s alleged misconduct

Chapter 7 bankruptcy

Bankruptcy services

Find a good bankruptcy attorney

Planning to file bankruptcy

A single crime involving moral turpitude

A conviction for a single crime involving moral turpitude that qualifies as a petty offense is not for an “offense referred to in section 212(a)(2)” of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2) (2006), for purposes of triggering the “stop-time” rule in section 240A(d)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1) (2006), even if it renders the alien removable under section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) (2006)

Nationality

Immigration attorney services

Immigration lawyer

The Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner

Generalized Overview of Removal of Conditional Residence Petition

EB-5 Investment Visa and Generalized Overview of Removal of Conditional Residence Petition – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/8rOE1

EB-5 and Removal of the Conditional Residence

EB-5 and Removal of the Conditional Residence – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/PkrIP

EB-5 Regional Center Investing

The EB-5 Regional Center Investing – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/Yss5R

EB-5 Regional Center Investing

The EB-5 Regional Center Investing – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/Yss5R

EB-5 and Specifics on the $1,000,000 Investment

EB-5 and Specifics on the $1,000,000 Investment – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/s15Ua

EB-5 Visa and Qualified Employment Creation

The EB-5 Visa and Qualified Employment Creation – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/40oOB

What is a Qualified Investment and EB-5 Visa?

EB-5 Visa and what is a Qualified Investment – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/F49Yv

BIA on Exceptional Circumstances ruling

Board of Immigration Appeals erred as a matter of law in ruling aliens seeking discretionary relief can never demonstrate “exceptional circumstances.” Deciding whether exceptional circumstances are present requires a consideration of all facts in a specific case, including but not limited to the probability of the petitioner obtaining relief. Where petitioner began asylum process in 1996 and diligently pursued his claim but missed a hearing because he was traveling and his attorney was not immediately able to contact him and obtain consent to the entry of a representative appearance, petitioner was entitled to recision of his in absentia deportation order due to these extraordinary circumstances. Vukmirovic v. Holder – filed September 8, 2010