• 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

Another Win for Our Immigration Law Office

Sua sponte motion to reopen 22-year-old removal order granted by the Immigration Court in Phoenix, Arizona for Mexican citizen with a federal conviction for distribution of a controlled substance.  Client can now return to the United States to apply for 212(c) relief and fight his deportation.

Another win for the Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner

Client, represented by her previous attorney, received a 6-page denial of her application for adjustment of status, with various allegations, including marriage fraud.  Our office, under a short deadline, prepared a motion to reopen arguing that there was no fraud and that our Client was eligible for adjustment based on her TPS status and her father’s I-130 petition.  Client can now remain in the U.S. with her husband and children, and can apply for naturalization in 5 years.

Supreme Court rules on defective Notice to Appears

In Pereira v. Sessions, __ U.S. __, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court held that service of a putative charging document that does not specify the time and place of removal proceedings does not meet the statutory definition of a Notice to Appear (NTA) under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) and, therefore, does not cut off a noncitizen’s ability to accrue the time in the United States required to qualify for cancellation of removal. Although the government is attempting to cabin the ruling’s impact to the cancellation of removal context, practitioners can apply the rationale underlying the Court’s interpretation of § 1229(a) to a wider variety of challenges. Furthermore, practitioners can file motions to reconsider and/or reopen prior removal orders predicated on defective NTAs within 30 to 90 days of the decision or as soon as practicable after learning of the decision.

Another win for our Law Office

Motion to reopen filed 6 years after I-130 denial approved by USCIS in Santa Ana, CA. Client can now apply for residency, through his sister’s petition, in 3 years rather than having to refile and wait 13 years.

Court Says Car Failure Does Not Constitute Exceptional Circumstances Justifying a Motion to Reopen

As a matter of first impression, the Ninth Circuit held that a car’s mechanical failure does not alone compel granting a motion to reopen based on exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, the court upheld the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen to rescind the in absentia removal order entered against the petitioner, whose car had broken down on the way to her removal hearing.

AAO Grants Motion to Reopen for TPS Applicant Where Notary Falsely Claimed to Be an Attorney

In a nonprecedent decision, the AAO granted the motion to reopen and remanded, finding that the applicant met all of the Lozada requirements, and satisfied his burden of showing that his delay in filing for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) was due to the ineffective assistance of an individual impersonating an attorney.

MTR Win with Marijuana Conviction

Motion to reopen and adjustment of status/green card application granted for client with a marijuana conviction who entered the United States in 2002 with only a school ID.  USCIS denied client’s application in 2014 finding that he failed to prove that he was properly admitted to the United States.  Our office then filed a motion to reopen along additional evidence of his entry, including results from a polygraph examination, and his case was approved nearly 2 years later.  Client can now legally stay in this country with his wife and children and apply for citizenship in the future.

MTR can be equitable Tolled

The Fifth Circuit granted the petition for review, holding that the 90-day deadline for filing motions to reopen can be equitably tolled, and remanding for the BIA to determine if equitable tolling was appropriate in the petitioner’s case. The court urged the BIA not to apply the equitable tolling test “too harshly,” noting the difficulties faced by immigrants who may be “poor, uneducated, unskilled in the English language, and effectively unable to follow developments in the American legal system—much less read and digest complicated legal decisions.”

Equitable tolling of Motion to Reopen

The Fifth Circuit remanded the petition to the Board of Immigration Appeals to determine if equitable tolling is appropriate in Mr. Lugo-Resendez’ case. Importantly, the Court instructed the Board not to apply the test “too harshly,” noting the difficulties faced by deported immigrants who may be “poor, uneducated, unskilled in the English language, and effectively unable to follow developments in the American legal system—much less read and digest complicated legal decisions.”

Eight Circuit rules against Motion to Reopen denial Appeal

Holding that it may only review the denial of a statutory motion to reopen under INA §240(c)(7), the Eighth Circuit found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of the petitioner’s motion to reopen, because the motion requested that the Board of Immigration Appeals reopen the removal proceedings pursuant to its sua sponte discretion under 8 CFR §1003.2(a).

%d bloggers like this: