Skip to main content
Scott D. Pollock

Scott Pollock’s Legal Cases

5 total

  • Kamal v. Gonzales

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Mar 03, 2008
    Outcome:
    Ruling for Plaintiff
    Description:
    Kamal v. Gonzales, 547 F. Supp. 2d 869 (N.D. IL 2008) (denying defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's mandamus action to adjudicate an adjustment of status application).
  • Morales-Morales v. Gonzales

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Outcome:
    Ruling for the petitioner
    Description:
    Morales-Morales v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2004) (reversing denial of cancellation of removal, upholding jurisdiction, finding continuous residence under the statute, and remanding to Board of Immigration Appeals)
  • Meraz v. Comfort

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Outcome:
    Ruling for Plaintiff
    Description:
    Meraz v. Comfort, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19591 (N.D. IL March 9, 2006) (denying government's motion to dismiss complaint for judicial naturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b)- court retains jurisdiction even after government initiates removal proceedings).
  • Kholyavskiy v. Schlecht

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Feb 09, 2007
    Outcome:
    Order grants attorneys fees & costs
    Description:
    Kholyasvsky v. Schlecht et al., 479 F. Supp. 2d 897 (E.D. WI 2007) (granting EAJA fees and costs in the amount of $ 22, 927.60, and holding that the “catalyst theory” still applies to immigration habeas actions).
  • Hafeez v. Dorochoff

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Outcome:
    Court denies government's motion to dismiss
    Description:
    The government denied the plaintiff's wife's I-130 visa petition alleging that a previous marriage was a sham. The government moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction and the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The court upheld the lawsuit, finding that the allegations that the government coerced the plaintiff's first wife into withdrawing her visa petition and making incriminating statements were sufficient to state a reason for the court to review the case, and the plaintiff was not required to take an administrative appeal before bringing his case in federal court.