Skip to main content
Anish Vashistha

Anish Vashistha’s Legal Cases

6 total

  • In re X

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Apr 01, 2009
    Outcome:
    My client won her appeal and won relief.
    Description:
    I represented a client originally from India who was already ordered deported from the United States partly because of Governmental abuse and partly because of the incompetent assistance of the client's prior counsel. My client came to see me only when the deadline to file an appeal was imminent, and the client retained my firm. I reviewed the court's file which included a large administrative record, interviewed the prior attorney, discussed the facts of the case at length with the client and her family members, and discussed the case with other associates from my firm. Moreover, I researched the recent changes in the law as they applied to the client's case because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had issued a decision that year that altered the manner in which the respective government agency approached such cases. I then concluded that the client did have a case to obtain relief from deportation and quickly communicated my conclusion and the basis for it to the client. After discussing my findings with the client, I conducted more thorough legal research and applied the law to my client's facts. I interviewed the client and her family members again to assist in drafting affidavits. I then completed a lengthy brief, which I filed on time with the supporting documents. After a few months, the administrative appellate court agreed with my legal position and remanded the case to the lower court. I prepared for the first hearing before the administrative judge by writing a motion clarifying my legal position, and after reviewing the motion and following my oral argument during the hearing, the Government submitted to my position, and my client was granted the relief sought. Instead of being deported, she is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States (Green Card holder).
  • The People v. Vasilyan

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    May 28, 2009
    Outcome:
    Appeal Granted: Matter Reversed & Remanded
    Description:
    My client was convicted of a California criminal-code section based on alleged violent activity in 1995. He had been deported as a result of the conviction. Several years, the client and his family contacted my office to look into finding a way to bring the client back to the United States legally. My office determined that removing the 1995 conviction was required to accomplish such a goal. In 2007, twelve years after the conviction, my office attempted to remove the conviction from the client's criminal record by arguing the offense for which he was convicted was not a criminal offense but instead was simply a penalty provision. A penalty provision under California Law states that a defendant can be given a harsher prison term if the criminal activity was so heinous that it warranted such a harsher penalty. However, for a penalty provision to apply, there must be some actual criminal activity for which the defendant is convicted. My client was not convicted of any such underlying criminal activity. Therefore, we argued that the conviction should not stand because it is only for a penalty provision and not for, and not in combination with a conviction for, any actual criminal activity. The trial-court judge from the California Superior Court did not agree with our arguments and denied the motion because he claimed that it was simply too late to bring such a motion and because he believed the conviction was sound. I explained to the client that because I believed we had sound legal basis for having the motion granted, we should appeal the decision to the California Court of Appeal. The client agreed, and I filed the appeal as well as the opening brief and a reply brief in response to a brief filed by the California Attorney General. I also filed a motion to have the record amended so that it would include necessary documents that I felt the California Court of Appeal should have the opportunity to review prior to making its decision. The California Court of Appeal called for oral argument on the case. On May 28, 2009, in a published decision, the California Court of Appeal granted the appeal and ordered the California Superior Court either to dismiss the case or to amend the original 1995 complaint. The majority opinion filed by Judge Madeleine Flier stated that the California Superior Court did not have jurisdiction to convict my client of simply a penalty provision and that motions to have such convictions removed from a defendant's record can be brought at any time.
  • In re X

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Dec 28, 2009
    Outcome:
    My client was granted relief from removal.
    Description:
    A Tunisian man was placed in removal proceedings before the Las Vegas Immigration Court in 2004. He was accused of having engaged in a fraudulent marriage to obtain a Green Card and for overstaying his visitor visa since he first entered in March 2000. The man had since remarried and was in a happy relationship with his United States citizen wife, but the Government still sought his deportation because the finding that his first marriage was fraudulent barred him from obtaining a Green Card from any later marriages. He came to see me in September 2009 and became my client. My office quickly filed for Special Rule Cancellation of Removal, a form of relief from removal available in Immigration Court for certain victims of domestic violence, which my client suffered in his first marriage. Three months after filing, a hearing was held on the application for Special Rule Cancellation of Removal. Despite the Government heavily opposing the application, the Immigration Court granted the application. What my client had been seeking for almost a decade we were able to help him achieve in only about three months.
  • In re X

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Mar 17, 2010
    Outcome:
    My client was granted withholding of removal.
    Description:
    A Pakistani citizen with a Green Card was convicted in the United States for grand theft and identity theft. After serving his criminal sentence, he was immediately transferred to the custody of the Department of Homeland Security and placed in removal proceedings. The Immigration Judge found him removable for having two aggravated felonies, making him ineligible for several forms of relief including asylum and cancellation of removal. My office was retained to represent the individual before the Immigration Court. I decided that the best option for my client was to pursue withholding of removal given the terrible conditions in Pakistan. Withholding of removal is similar to asylum but is much more difficult to obtain because more evidence is required for it to be approved. I met with the client who was in detention and with his family members on several occasions to let them understand what was required for the client to receive withholding of removal. The Department of Homeland Security placed great effort in the case and worked very hard to have my client's application for withholding of removal dismissed by the Immigration Judge. Nevertheless, the Immigration Judge granted my client withholding of removal so that he may stay with his family in the United States rather than being returned to Pakistan.
  • In re X

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Outcome:
    My client obtained a J-1 waiver and changed status
    Description:
    In September 2009, the Client, a Colombian national, retained our law firm to help her with a number of immigration issues. First, she was subject to the two-year home-residency requirement that would not permit her to change from her then J-1 status to any other status within the United States. Second, although her employer had an approved Labor Certification Application, her employer’s tax returns did not show that the company generated enough revenue to pay her the required wage. Finally, her J-1 status was expiring very soon, and she did not want to leave the United States. Our office quickly filed with the Client’s home country’s embassy a request for a no-objection certificate regarding the two-year home-residency requirement. We then requested a recommendation for the waiver of the home-residency requirement from the U.S. Department of State. Shortly thereafter, our office filed an I-140 immigrant petition for the Client arguing that, despite the Client’s employer’s revenues being low, the Client’s employer’s assets proved that the employer could pay the required wage. USCIS agreed with the argument and granted the I-140 immigrant petition on January 29, 2010 so that the Client could obtain her Green Card when her priority date becomes current. Finally, and prior to approval of the J-1 waiver, our office filed an H-1B change-of-status petition for the Client. Because the J-1 waiver was required to have been approved before USCIS could approve the H-1B petition, our office requested expedited treatment of the waiver-recommendation application pending with the Department of State. Following issuance of the no-objection certificate by the Client’s home country’s embassy, the Department of State granted our expedite request and recommended USCIS to grant the waiver, which USCIS did on 02/05/2010. Following notification to USCIS of the approval of the waiver, our office received approval of the Client’s H-1B petition. Therefore, in a span of less than six months, our office was able to secure the Client’s ability to reside legally in the United States both in the short-term and the long-term.
  • In re X

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Outcome:
    My client won, and ICE's appeal was dismissed.
    Description:
    After I assisted the client, a Tunisian man, in having his September 14, 2009 application for Cancellation of Removal approved before the Las Vegas Immigration Court on December 28, 2009, ICE appealed that decision. I represented the Client in opposing the appeal. The main issues on appeal were whether the Immigration Court ruled correctly in finding that the Client did not commit marriage fraud, whether the Client had shown the required hardship, and whether the Client's remarriage invalidated his eligibility for Cancellation of Removal pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act. The Board of Immigration Appeals found that the Immigration Court acted correctly and dismissed ICE's appeal, thereby bringing a positive end to the Client's more than six years of removal proceedings.