Bouarfa v. Secretary, Dep't of Homeland Security, 75 F.4th 1157 (11th Cir. 2023)

Jul 28, 2023

OUTCOME: Case Dismissed

Form I-130 revoked and denied based on prior INA §204(c) finding by USCIS. Challenged denial in U.S. District Court. Case was dismissed because the District Judge concluded that federal courts could ... not review visa revocations because these such decisions were discretionary. Appealed and the Eleventh Circuit issued its first published opinion joining the majority of Circuit Courts of Appeal holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review visa revocations.

Fuad Said v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 28 F.4th 1328 (11th Cir. 2022)

Mar 24, 2022

OUTCOME: Agency Decisions Vacated and Case Remanded to Board of Immigration Appeals

Established that the Florida definition of "cannabis" was overbroad as compared to the federal definition of the same term. This resulted in the vacatur of the order of removal entered by the Board of ... Immigration Appeals and the Immigration Judge and a remand of the case to allow Mr. Said to apply for cancellation of removal for permanent residents (Form EOIR-42A). Arranged for Mr. Said to be returned to the United States after removal.

Ramon Duran Guillen v. U.S. Attorney General, 910 F.3d 1174 (11th Cir. 2018)

Dec 13, 2018

OUTCOME: BIA Decision Affirmed

Alien convicted of violation of §893.13(6)(a) [possession of controlled substance]. Argument was that state statute was indivisible and because the state's list of controlled substances was larger tha ... n the federal schedule of controlled substances that the state statute was overbroad. Accordingly, the alien was not subject to removal for having been "categorically" convicted of an offense "relating to" a federally defined "controlled substance." Court found statute was divisible, applied the "modified categorical approach" and determine that alien was subject to removal as charged.

Mendoza v. Secretary, 851 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2017)

Apr 03, 2017

OUTCOME: Denied I-130 Affirmed by Federal Courts

US citizen daughter ("Petitioner") filed I-130 for her father ("Beneficiary"). USCIS denied I-130 because Petitioner and Beneficiary refused to respond to USCIS questions regarding bona fides of Benef ... iciary's previous marriage to a US citizen spouse. USCIS denied I-130 only after Petitioner filed complaint in federal court seeking writ of mandamus. Second complaint filed seeking review of denied I-130 under Administrative Procedure Act. District Court affirmed denial. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed District Court. Petition for writ of certiorari denied by US Supreme Court.

Brinklys v. Johnson, 175 F.Supp.3d 1338 (M.D. Fla. 2016)

Mar 30, 2016

OUTCOME:

Melendez v. Secretary, 215 F.Supp.3d 1266 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

Jul 31, 2015

OUTCOME:

Gjondrekaj v. Napolitano, 801 F.Supp.2d 1344 (M.D. Fla. 2011)

Aug 02, 2011

OUTCOME:

Martinez v. Secretary, 670 F.Supp.2d 1325 (M.D. Fla. 2009)

Nov 12, 2009

OUTCOME: Successful

Naturalization case where USCIS delayed adjudication. Filed lawsuit to remove case to US District Court for consideration or for writ of mandamus ordering USCIS to make a decision. Outcome clarifies ... that only the District Court has the authority to make a decision on a pending application for naturalization when suit is filed to address delayed adjudication.

Lenis v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2008)

May 05, 2008

OUTCOME: Petition for Review Denied

The issue in this case was whether the Circuit Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the denial of the Board of Immigration Appeals in exercising its powers to sua sponte reopen proceedings. Ult ... imately, the Court agreed with each of the other Circuit Courts of Appeal which had addressed this issue and determined that jurisdiction did not exist to review the matter.

Niftaliev v. Gonzales, 504 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2007)

Oct 16, 2007

OUTCOME: Petition for Review Granted

This case dealt with the issue of whether the alien had established that the treatment which he endured in his home country qualified such that he could be deemed to have suffered past persecution and ... therefore entitled to a regulatory presumption that he would be persecuted if returned to his native country. The Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals determined that the client had not suffered from past persecution. The Eleventh Circuit initially agreed and dismissed the petition for review. That decision was then vacated and supplemental briefing and oral argument scheduled. The Eleventh Circuit ultimately granted to petition for review and remanded proceedings to the Immigration Court. The client was subsequently granted withholding of removal.