• Hours & Info

    3233 E. Broadway,
    Long Beach, CA 90803
    (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

Can I get review of my denied case under the REAL ID Act?

Posted on November 30, 2025 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: I have had my case denied in Immigration Court and I have heard about the REAL ID act and am very confused if I can get some type of judicial review of my case. Can you clarify?

Answer: The REAL ID Act did not change the language of either subpart (i) or (ii) of the statute giving/denying review. Rather, the Act made two changes to the paragraph preceding these subparts. First, it specified that the phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of law” applied to “statutory and nonstatutory” law and included the habeas corpus statute, the mandamus statute, and the All Writs Act. Second, the REAL ID Act also expanded the scope of § 242(a)(2)(B) so that it now applies “regardless of whether the [discretionary] judgment, decision, or action is made in removal proceedings.” Prior to the REAL ID Act, some – though not all – courts had held that § 242(a)(2)(B) was applicable only in removal cases. Presumably, this amendment was intended to reverse these earlier court decisions.

Question: Do these amendments eliminate all mandamus and other types of affirmative suits?

Answer: No, these changes do not eliminate all jurisdiction over mandamus and other affirmative lawsuits in non-removal cases. To determine whether jurisdiction remains available in a particular case, it is necessary to carry out a several step analysis. This analysis is essentially the same as the analysis to determine whether jurisdiction exists in a removal case involving agency discretion. Consequently, court decisions interpreting § 242(a)(2)(B) in the removal context will be helpful in determining whether the provision applies in a non-removal case.

Question: What steps are involved in determining whether a court has jurisdiction under § 242(a)(2)(B) in a removal or non-removal case?

Answer: There are several items that one must look at to determine if this section applies. 1. Does the issue/case fall completely outside the scope of INA § 242(a)(2)(B)? A. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) only limits jurisdiction over certain discretionary actions and decisions. B. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply to asylum decisions.

C. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) also does not apply to naturalization decisions and D. INA § 242(a)(2) should not apply to S, T and U visas.

Question: What if the case is one that appears to have fallen under the provision not permitting discretionary review?

Answer: Again, it is necessary to do an analysis. First, has there been an actual exercise of discretion? Even where there has been an actual exercise of discretion, is this exercise of discretion the issue in the case? Is the challenged action or decision discretionary? Is the decision or action specified by statute to be discretionary? Is the grant of discretion one of pure discretion unguided by legal principles? (9th Circuit cases.)

Thus, while the REAL ID Act may seem to completely limit judicial review of cases, if you fight the matter and analyze the case, there are different ways to still get judicial review of your case.

Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Title: Will my attorney tell INS about me?

Posted on October 14, 2025 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

 Question: I have been in the United States for many years. I think there were several things I could have done in the past to help my situation, but did not know exactly what to do. Unfortunately, I let the opportunities pass because I was afraid to see a lawyer. To be honest, I was afraid they would turn me in to INS. Can you tell me what I can do?

Answer: First, you should not be afraid to see a lawyer. Lawyer’s have what is known as the Attorney-Client Privilege. This means that whatever you say to a lawyer cannot be discussed with anyone. If it is, then there is a very serious violation of the Professional Ethics of Responsibility.

Question: What is the reason for the Attorney-Client Privilege?

Answer: Actually, it is meant to protect people in your exact situation. People must not be afraid to see a lawyer to help them. If they thought that the lawyer would either tell someone, or turn them into INS, people would either not come for help, or would not tell the whole story. Naturally, if they did not tell the whole story, the lawyer could not fully represent them.

I have had clients in the past who did not tell me they had prior deportation orders. When the time came to submit everything, these people could have easily been detained and deported. Luckily, I found out the truth. However, had I not found out the truth, there cases would have been severely compromised.

Question: What happens if I get laid off or have a disagreement with my attorney? Can he or she then turn me in to INS?

Answer: No, the attorney-client privilege stays in tact forever. This means that years after the case is over, the attorney can still not disclose the facts of the case. Immigration is a very unique area of law. This is because many times people are afraid of being deported and assume that an attorney is an American who would either be working on behalf of the government or under an obligation to inform the government. While in some countries that may be true, it is not true in the U.S. An attorney is a person who wants to represent you to help you with your immigration problem. You need not be afraid to go into the office of an attorney. There are many constraints on what an attorney can and cannot do. All of these restraints are made to protect the public. Many times you are afraid and alone. Do not let another opportunity pass to obtain legal status because you think the attorney will call INS. You will only be hurting yourself in the future. In most cases, by helping yourself, you will also help your family. If you want to make absolutely certain that it will not be disclosed, make certain the attorney you are seeing is a licensed attorney. Only after you see an attorney and fully discuss every detail of your case can you get full and complete representation.

Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Title: Have I or Have I not “Aged-Out”?

Posted on August 13, 2025 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: I know that President Bush has signed into law the new Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) on August 6, 2002. However, I am very confused on whether this law applies to me. Can you clarify how I know if I have ‘aged-out’ under the new law?

Answer: First, there are sections that apply to Immediate Relatives. Generally, these would be spouses of U.S. Citizens, parents of U.S. Citizens over 21 years of age and sons/daughters of U.S. Citizens who are under 21 years of age and unmarried.

Thus, most of the child age-out provisions will apply to the last category. Here, if the beginning of the family petition is filed BEFORE the child turns 21, then no matter how long it takes, that child will be deemed to be a child for immigration purposes.

Question: What if my parent was a Lawful Permanent Resident when he filed for me and I was under 21 at the time, but now my parent has become a U.S. Citizen?

Answer: In this case, the date that your parent naturalizes will control. Therefore, if your parent naturalized and you were 20 years old, then you will be considered a ‘child’ who will not age-out for this act. Therefore, it would be critical if your parent has not yet naturalized, and you are under 21 years of age, that they immediately begin naturalization proceedings.

Question: What if my friend was married at 18 years of age and then got divorced at 20 years of age? Will he qualify?

Answer: Yes. If his U.S. Citizen parent has petitioned him, then he will automatically move to the preference which is set for single son and daughters of U.S. Citizen Parents.

Question: Is the law retroactive and how do I know if I fall under it?

Answer: It appears as though current interpretation is that if there was a final decision on the case, that it is not retroactive. However, if the case is still pending, it appears that it will fall of the provisions of this act. Please note that the interpretations by the Department of State seem also to indicate that if derivative beneficiaries have not had a final approval on the case, but that the main applicant has, that it still could fall under this act.

Therefore, anyone who has been waiting years for this petition to become current, only to learn that they must wait many more years after becoming a U.S. Citizen, should take advantage of this law right away. All of these interpretations are from the Department of State. They have specifically stated that they might be able to change those interpretations after interagency communications. Therefore, what is stated here might change as time goes on. It hopefully will change to allow even more people fall under the provisions of this particular law.

Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Title: I’m over 21, but the law says I’m under 21

Posted on August 7, 2025 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: I know that the Child Protection Act has been passed on August 6, 2002. However, I am still confused if I fall under this provision. Can you help to clarify?

Answer: Yes. The Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) makes certain allowances for people who have become older than 21 years old, but can still have their applications processed as though they are under 21 years old.

IMMEDIATE RELATIVES: The first category is Immediate Relatives. These people will be able to be considered to be able to immediately apply to adjust their status to that of a Lawful Permanent Resident, even though they may be over 21 years old. If you are in the U.S. and want to adjust your status to that of a Lawful Permanent Resident, there are a couple of grounds upon which to do this under the Immediate Relative provisions of the CSPA.

If you are under 21 years old when a petition is filed for you by your U.S. Citizen parent, you will be considered to have not ‘aged-out’ even if your status is not adjudicated until after you are 21 years old. The critical factor will be when the initial I-130 is filed. It is how old you are on the date the I-130 is filed that will determine if you remain a “child” for purposes of not ‘aging-out’.

Question: What if my parent was a Lawful Permanent Resident when the I-130 was filed, and later became a U.S. Citizen?

Answer: In that case, the critical date that will determine if you are a child who will not age-out will be the date your parent became a U.S. Citizen, not the date the I-130 was filed. For example, let us say that the I-130 was filed when you were 18, and your parent naturalized when you were 20 year old. In this example, even if the adjustment was not done until after you were 21 years old, you would be considered to remain at 20 years old and therefore, not to have aged-out when you turn 21 years old. It makes it critically important that your parent become a U.S. Citizen right way if they are eligible if you happen to be less than 21 years old.

Question: What if my parent is not eligible to become a Naturalized U.S. Citizen? Can I still avail of the CSPA?

Answer: In this case, the date that the Immigration and Naturalization Service will look at to determine if a person is a ‘child’ under the CSPA will not be when the I-130 is filed, nor when the parent would become a U.S. Citizen, but rather, when the priority date becomes current. It is critically important that if you fall under this category, that you make certain that you file for Adjustment of Status within ONE year of the priority date becoming current. Otherwise, you cannot fall under the provisions of the CSPA.

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/cspa/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/child-status-protection-act/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/child-citizenshjip-protection-act/

https://californiaimmigration.us/businesses-subject-to-punishment-with-new-protection-act

Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Will my attorney tell INS about me?

Posted on August 4, 2025 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: I have been in the United States for many years. I think there were several things I could have done in the past to help my situation, but did not know exactly what to do. Unfortunately, I let the opportunities pass because I was afraid to see a lawyer. To be honest, I was afraid they would turn me in to INS. Can you tell me what I can do?

Answer: First, you should not be afraid to see a lawyer. Lawyer’s have what is known as the Attorney-Client Privilege. This means that whatever you say to a lawyer cannot be discussed with anyone. If it is, then there is a very serious violation of the Professional Ethics of Responsibility.

Question: What is the reason for the Attorney-Client Privilege?

Answer: Actually, it is meant to protect people in your exact situation. People must not be afraid to see a lawyer to help them. If they thought that the lawyer would either tell someone, or turn them into INS, people would either not come for help, or would not tell the whole story. Naturally, if they did not tell the whole story, the lawyer could not fully represent them.

I have had clients in the past who did not tell me they had prior deportation orders. When the time came to submit everything, these people could have easily been detained and deported. Luckily, I found out the truth. However, had I not found out the truth, there cases would have been severely compromised.

Question: What happens if I get laid off or have a disagreement with my attorney? Can he or she then turn me in to INS?

Answer: No, the attorney-client privilege stays in tact forever. This means that years after the case is over, the attorney can still not disclose the facts of the case. Immigration is a very unique area of law. This is because many times people are afraid of being deported and assume that an attorney is an American who would either be working on behalf of the government or under an obligation to inform the government. While in some countries that may be true, it is not true in the U.S. An attorney is a person who wants to represent you to help you with your immigration problem. You need not be afraid to go into the office of an attorney. There are many constraints on what an attorney can and cannot do. All of these restraints are made to protect the public. Many times you are afraid and alone. Do not let another opportunity pass to obtain legal status because you think the attorney will call INS. You will only be hurting yourself in the future. In most cases, by helping yourself, you will also help your family. If you want to make absolutely certain that it will not be disclosed, make certain the attorney you are seeing is a licensed attorney. Only after you see an attorney and fully discuss every detail of your case can you get full and complete representation.

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/ins/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/ins-deportation-2/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/ins-attorney/

Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

What does the REAL ID Act mean?

Posted on June 25, 2025 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: I have heard so much about the REAL ID Act, but do not really understand what it is. Can you explain?

Answer: The REAL ID Act made two changes to INA § 242(a)(2)(B), an INA subsection added by IIRIRA that precludes federal court jurisdiction over certain discretionary decisions. One of these changes purports to expand § 242(a)(2)(B) to non-removal cases.

Courts have only recently begun to interpret the REAL ID Act.

Question: What is INA § 242(a)(2)(B)?

Answer: INA § 242(a)(2)(B), entitled “Denials of Discretionary Relief,” restricts when federal courts have jurisdiction over certain types of discretionary decisions and action by the government in immigration cases.

INA § 242(a)(2)(B) includes two subparts. The first limits federal court jurisdiction over a “judgment regarding the granting of relief under section criminal and fraud waivers, cancellation of removal or adjustment proceedings. The second subpart restricts federal court jurisdiction over “any other decision or action … the authority for which is specified under this title [Title II] to be in the discretion or the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security.” Asylum decisions are specifically exempted from this bar on jurisdiction.

For § 242(a)(2)(B) to apply, a case must fall within one of these two subsections. Each subpart has been interpreted narrowly, in accord with the specific language chosen by Congress.

The REAL ID Act also expanded the scope of § 242(a)(2)(B) so that it now applies “regardless of whether the [discretionary] judgment, decision, or action is made in removal proceedings.” Prior to the REAL ID Act, some – though not all courts had held that § 242(a)(2)(B) was applicable only in removal cases. Presumably, this amendment was intended to reverse these earlier court decisions.

Question: Do these amendments eliminate all mandamus and other types of affirmative suits in non-removal cases?

Answer: No, these changes do not eliminate all jurisdictions over mandamus and other affirmative lawsuits in non-removal cases. To determine whether jurisdiction remains available in a particular case, a practitioner may carry out a several step analysis. This analysis is essentially the same as the analysis to determine whether jurisdiction exists in a removal case involving agency discretion. Consequently, court decisions interpreting § 242(a)(2)(B) in the removal context will be helpful in determining whether the provision applies in a non-removal case.

Question: What steps are involved in determining whether a court has jurisdiction under § 242(a)(2)(B) in a removal or non-removal case?

Answer: While there are several issues in such an analysis, the first issue will be looked at in this article. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply to every immigration-related case. Thus, the first step is to determine if the case is entirely outside the reach of § 242(a)(2)(B). There are at least four general categories of cases that arguably fall outside the reach of this section.

A. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) only limits jurisdiction over certain discretionary actions and decisions. Neither this section nor the REAL ID Act stripped federal courts of jurisdiction where the government has a nondiscretionary duty to act. In mandamus cases in particular, the existence of a mandatory, non-discretionary duty on the part of the government is an essential element of the claim. Thus, mandamus actions by definition generally should not fall within the restrictions of INA § 242(a)(2)(B).

B. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply to asylum decisions. Asylum is not one of the forms of discretionary relief specifically mentioned in § 242(a)(2)(B)(i), and thus this subsection does not apply to asylum cases. Additionally, asylum is specifically exempted from § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), and thus this subsection also does not apply to asylum cases. Consequently, § 242(a)(2)(B) should never be an issue with respect to federal court jurisdiction over asylum cases, even if the challenged agency action is a discretionary one.

C. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) also does not apply to naturalization decisions. Additionally, § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) states that it applies to agency decisions or action, “the authority for which is specified under this title” to be discretionary. Consequently, INA § 242(a)(2)(B) should never be an issue in federal court jurisdiction over a naturalization decision, even one involving discretion.

D. INA § 242(a)(2) should not apply to S, T and U visas. While generally, this provision contains definitions that do not authorize discretion, there are a few exceptions. For example, the definition of the non-immigrant “T” visa category includes as an eligibility requirement that the Attorney General determine if the individual “would suffer extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm upon removal.” The determination of extreme hardship has been held to be a discretionary determination. Arguably, however, the exercise of the Attorney General’s discretion with respect to a T visa would not fall within the bar to jurisdiction in § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) because the statutory authority for this discretion is found in Title I, not Title II. The definitions of the “S” and “U” visa categories contain similar grants of discretion that fall outside the scope of § 242(a)(2)(B).

Thus, the REAL ID Act did not completely eliminate federal court jurisdiction.

Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

What is PERM?

Posted on May 11, 2025 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: I am planning on filing a Labor Certification and have heard about a PERM program. Can you shed some light on what this is?

Answer: Actually, the PERM program is going to be a much faster route for the Labor Certification. However, it is not yet here. But, there has been some guidance from top government officials on the progress of PERM. The Department of Labor expects the regulations to be published before the end of 2004. Afterwards, they expect the regulations to take effect in 60 days. However, they have made contingency plans if the regulations do not get published by the end of 2004.

Normally, a Labor Certification goes to the State Workforce Agency (SWA) first for processing before it goes up to the federal Department of Labor. With the event of PERM, the SWA’s will be taken out of the picture and the Labor Certification will be filed directly with the Department of Labor.

Question: What is the contingency plan if the regulations are not published by the end of 2004?

Answer: In 2005, the SWA’s will send their caseload to newly made centralized federal locations. Thus, the SWA’s can still accept cases (if the regulations are not published), but will not process them. They will only send them to the determined central federal locations for processing at the federal level. The backlog centers are in Philadelphia and Dallas. These centers are made for the sole purpose to reduce the backlog of Labor Certifications around the U.S. These backlog centers are temporary and are expected to be closed within two years. The goal is to get rid of the years of backlog cases by processing them through these backlog centers. As for permanent national centers, these will be located in Atlanta and Chicago and will be operational next year. These centers are expected to handle all future incoming Labor Certification cases.

Question: If the regulations do not go into effect on January 1, 2005, what must I do with my Labor Certification?

Answer: Remember that the SWA is the State Workforce Agency and this is the agency that normally would have done initial processing on the Labor Certification (which many times would last for several years before being sent to the Department of Labor.) The SWA will still accept the case. They will time-stamp the filing, but they will not process the case. They will then send the case to one of the two new regional processing centers in Atlanta or Chicago once they are up and running. As of now, there are basically DOL Labor Certification centers all across the nation. It appears these will all be consolidated into the two national centers mentioned.

In any event, there has already been one major shipment of backlogged cases to the temporary backlog centers and it is expected that the remainder will be shipped before March of 2005. It is certainly a new day for Labor Certifications. Hopefully, the years of waiting will come to a reasonable and happy end.

Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

What is PERM?

Posted on May 8, 2025 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: I am planning on filing a Labor Certification and have heard about a PERM program. Can you shed some light on what this is?

Answer: Actually, the PERM program is going to be a much faster route for the Labor Certification. However, it is not yet here. But, there has been some guidance from top government officials on the progress of PERM. The Department of Labor expects the regulations to be published before the end of 2004. Afterwards, they expect the regulations to take effect in 60 days. However, they have made contingency plans if the regulations do not get published by the end of 2004.

Normally, a Labor Certification goes to the State Workforce Agency (SWA) first for processing before it goes up to the federal Department of Labor. With the event of PERM, the SWA’s will be taken out of the picture and the Labor Certification will be filed directly with the Department of Labor.

Question: What is the contingency plan if the regulations are not published by the end of 2004?

Answer: In 2005, the SWA’s will send their caseload to newly made centralized federal locations. Thus, the SWA’s can still accept cases (if the regulations are not published), but will not process them. They will only send them to the determined central federal locations for processing at the federal level. The backlog centers are in Philadelphia and Dallas. These centers are made for the sole purpose to reduce the backlog of Labor Certifications around the U.S. These backlog centers are temporary and are expected to be closed within two years. The goal is to get rid of the years of backlog cases by processing them through these backlog centers. As for permanent national centers, these will be located in Atlanta and Chicago and will be operational next year. These centers are expected to handle all future incoming Labor Certification cases.

Question: If the regulations do not go into effect on January 1, 2005, what must I do with my Labor Certification?

Answer: Remember that the SWA is the State Workforce Agency and this is the agency that normally would have done initial processing on the Labor Certification (which many times would last for several years before being sent to the Department of Labor.) The SWA will still accept the case. They will time-stamp the filing, but they will not process the case. They will then send the case to one of the two new regional processing centers in Atlanta or Chicago once they are up and running. As of now, there are basically DOL Labor Certification centers all across the nation. It appears these will all be consolidated into the two national centers mentioned.

In any event, there has already been one major shipment of backlogged cases to the temporary backlog centers and it is expected that the remainder will be shipped before March of 2005. It is certainly a new day for Labor Certifications. Hopefully, the years of waiting will come to a reasonable and happy end.

Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

LULAC and CSS are back!

Posted on April 24, 2025 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: I have been in the U.S. for many years. Years back I applied under LULAC and was rejected. I know that there have been court cases on this matter for years. Is there any hope that it will come back or that I will be able to apply under CSS again?

Answer: You are right about the years of court cases. This matter, Catholic Social Services or LULAC has been up and down the court system for years. These types of applications were also known as legalization applications. Now, the U.S. District Court in Sacramento has approved a settlement agreement for persons who were previously rejected for certain reasons. This means, that if you fall under the provisions of the settlement agreement, you might be able to successfully apply for LULAC again in order to obtain Lawful Permanent Residency.

Question: Who is covered under the LULAC settlement agreement?

Answer: 1) You had to live in the United States unlawfully from before January 1, 1982, to a date between May 5, 1987, and May 4, 1988, when you went to an office of the Immigration Service or a Qualified Designated entity to apply for legalization.

2) You, your parent or your spouse visited an INS office or Qualified Designated Entity between May 5, 1987, and May 4, 1988, to apply for legalization.

3) The INS or QDE told you that you were ineligible for legalization because you had traveled outside the United States without INS permission. You, your spouse or your parent returned to the United States with an immigration issued document such as a Student Visa, Visitor Visa or some other Immigration issued document.

4) You do NOT need to have previously “registered” as a LULAC class member or even had a completed application. However, you did need to go the QDE in the specified time period.

Question: What type of evidence do I need to present to win under this LULAC Settlement agreement?

Answer: Clearly, many people do not have the original documents, or even any stamped documents from Immigration. Usually, if the former INS had rejected the application because of what is known as ‘front-desking’, the person was just turned away. Thus, it is not possible in many instances for an applicant to prove that they were rejected. However, the LULAC settlement specifically states that persons who fall under this settlement may establish eligibility for legalization by way of declarations, and not only by original documents. The settlement also provides class members the right to appeal to a “special master,” a judicial officer with the authority to correct the CIS’s errors in the event the agency does not decide a class member’s legalization application promptly, fairly, and in accordance with the settlement’s guidelines.

Question: When can I apply for this?

Answer: The settlement provides that CIS must begin accepting legalization applications no later than May 24, 2004, but the government might decide to begin the one-year application somewhat earlier. This means that individuals will likely have until May 23, 2005, to apply for legalization under the settlement.

Question: Is there any other previous amnesty related provisions that this settlement agreement is applicable toward?

Answer: Actually there are others. Catholic Social Services is another program that is applicable to this settlement agreement. There are a couple of differences. First, you would have had to travel outside the U.S. without authorization after November 6, 1986. Second, you returned to the U.S. without permission.

Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Is CSS Still Alive?

Posted on April 21, 2025 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: I have been in the U.S. for many years. Years back I applied under CSS and was rejected. I know that there have been court cases on this matter for years. Is there any hope that it will come back or that I will be able to apply under CSS again?

Answer: You are right about the years of court cases. This matter, Catholic Social Services or CSS has been up and down the court system for years. These types of applications were also known as legalization applications. Now, the U.S. District Court in Sacramento has approved a settlement agreement for persons who were previously rejected for certain reasons. This means, that if you fall under the provisions of the settlement agreement, you might be able to successfully apply for CSS again in order to obtain Lawful Permanent Residency.

Question: Who is covered under the CSS settlement agreement?

Answer: 1) You had to live in the United States unlawfully from before January 1, 1982, to a date between May 5, 1987, and May 4, 1988, when you went to an office of the Immigration Service or a Qualified Designated entity to apply for legalization.

2) You visited an INS office or Qualified Designated Entity between May 5, 1987, and May 4, 1988, to apply for legalization.

3) The INS or QDE told you that you were ineligible for legalization because you had traveled outside the United States without INS permission.

4) You do NOT need to have previously “registered” as a CSS class member. However, IF you did NOT apply for a CSS work permit, then you must also have had a complete legalization application and fee when you went in to apply for legalization. If you ever attempted to get a CSS work permit–even if the INS refused to give you a work permit–then it is NOT required that you had a complete application and fee when you went in to apply for legalization.

Question: What type of evidence do I need to present to win under this CSS Settlement agreement?

Answer: Clearly, many people do not have the original documents, or even any stamped documents from Immigration. Usually, if the former INS had rejected the application because of what is known as ‘front-desking’, the person was just turned away. Thus, it is not possible in many instances for an applicant to prove that they were rejected. However, the CSS settlement specifically states that persons who fall under this settlement may establish eligibility for legalization by way of declarations, and not only by original documents. The settlement also provides class members the right to appeal to a “special master,” a judicial officer with the authority to correct the CIS’s errors in the event the agency does not decide a class member’s legalization application promptly, fairly, and in accordance with the settlement’s guidelines.

Question: When can I apply for this?

Answer: The settlement provides that CIS must begin accepting legalization applications no later than May 21, 2004, but the government might decide to begin the one-year application somewhat earlier. This means that individuals will likely have until May 20, 2005, to apply for legalization under the settlement.

Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Next Page »

  • Brian D. Lerner

    Immigration Lawyer

  • Blog Stats

    • 298,665 Visitors

  • Categories

  • Recent Posts