Skip to main content
Kevin Lawrence Dixler

Kevin Dixler’s Legal Cases

10 total

  • Matter of General Perpective, A00-000-000

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Outcome:
    Terminated at EOIR, not reversed at BIA
    Description:
    The goal of immigration cases is to avoid appeal. If a case has a strong enough position, then ICE may chose to terminate (dismiss) or not file an appeal. The reasons are two-fold. First, an ICE appeal may be counterproductive and futile. A precedent decision makes it easier for other foreigners to get relief. The DHS may believe that some in the same position may not merit termination. Second, it takes time and effort to appeal. Some Assistant Chief Counsels find certain appeals time consuming futile efforts that may hurt both the DHS and the immigrant. Often, it is the unpublished cases that don't cost my client's additional fees and embarrassment. If efforts are invested at the beginning, then the cases may cost more at first, but ultimately cost less in aggravation and fees. This is because there may be no BIA appeal. Wiser clients should appreciate this sort of effort. Clients need to be prepared to spend time with their case, but so do attorneys. This can be difficult, when some must be locked up in a county jail for the duration of the entire case. If a decision is made to give up immigration rights and depart, it 'may' become impossible to undo. We depend upon clients who are committed to challenging their removal, when it can be reasonably confronted. Also, clients who have realistic expectations and are willing to appreciate how the laws work.
  • Nwokeji v. Perryman, et. al., 96 CV 5699

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Outcome:
    Settled and Dismissed
    Description:
    Legacy I.N.S. Delayed on Final Citizenship by Naturalization decision for two years after examination. I.N.S. issued Citizenship Ceremony Notice within days of service of summons of Plaintiff filing lawsuit.
  • Ruiz-Errejon v. Immigration and Naturlization Service

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Sep 26, 1997
    Outcome:
    Plaintiff Prevails
    Description:
    Plaintiff granted Citizenship by Naturalization based upon 8 USC 1448 due to emergency; Section 212(a)(9)(B) unlawful presence bar to impact spouse if adjustment not filed by 9/27/97. Judge Plunkett heard case.
  • Direct TV, Inc. v. DeJesus, 03 CV 8272

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Outcome:
    Settled and Dismissed
    Description:
    Telecommunications Company serves client a complaint who allegedly used false identity, but actual defendant took client's assumed identity to allegedly purchase, then unlawfully sell and install pirated Direct TV units.
  • Posterli v. Reno, 98 CV 4674

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Apr 26, 2000
    Outcome:
    Stay Granted
    Description:
    Writ of Habeas Corpus based upon 28 USC 2241. Stay granted until final decision in LaGuerre v. Reno, 98-1954.
  • Sularz v. U.S.C.I.S., et. al., 07 CV 5722

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Outcome:
    Settled and Dismissed
    Description:
    Citizenship by Naturalization based upon 8 USC 1447 and 5 USC 702, et. seq., old misdemeanor results in delay of decision for several years after examination. USCIS grants citizenship ceremony notice.
  • Younis v. Dorchoff, et. al., 09cv07461

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Outcome:
    Ceremony Letter Granted
    Description:
    Naturalization applicant's case was delayed more than a year after his examination. Efforts to get a ceremony after he passed the naturalization examination accomplished nothing. The attorney filed what is called a declaratory judgment, but the USCIS refused to answer and sent an approval notice, instead. The case is pending subject to dismissal, since naturalization was granted.
  • Chruscik v. Dorchoff, 11 cv 120

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Jan 07, 2011
    Outcome:
    U.S.C.I.S. agreed to vacate and approve Naturalization
    Description:
    Federal District Ct. Appeal of Naturalization Application due to allegedly unjustified tax concerns along with allegations of wilful and wanton conduct during review which violated immigration law. Northern IL District
  • Sanchez v. Holder, et. al., 1:12 cv 06484

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Outcome:
    settled for plaintiff without defendant answer, dismissed with prejudice by Plaintiff after Oath Ceremony
    Description:
    Plaintiff denied naturalization, but did not receive timely notice for seven months despite efforts by plaintiff and Congressman. Decision attempted to rescind LPR Status without personal service upon plaintiff. Grounds for rescission were not based upon proven fact. The lawsuit demanded declaratory judgement as a matter of law on all issues and review based upon effective timely appeal based upon date of actual service.
  • Mozdzen v. Holder, 622 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2010)

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Sep 07, 2010
    Outcome:
    Overuled with dicta on other issues and issued as a precedent.
    Description:
    Argued that the non-LPR cancellation of removal ten year requirement allowed accrual of time "immediately proceeding the date of such application." The EOIR42B application must be filed during proceedings. As a result, the stop time rule in INA Section 240A(d)(1) seemed inconsistent and void for vagueness in that (d)(1) nullifies the intent of INA Section 240A(b)(1)(A), which seemed to allow accrual of time during proceedings.