Attorney David J. Chapman's Legal Cases

Immigration

In the Matter of [NAME WITHHELD-Immigration Court Level-Non-Public]

Jan 01, 2006

OUTCOME: Win at the Immigration Court level and success at the USCIS level.

Client was denied admission and paroled to appear in Immigration Court. He failed to appear and an in absentia order was issued, but the US Government argued only that he was deportable for failing to ... have a visa. They did not pursue a misrepresentation charge. The client married a USC and adjusted status. On a later trip the error in granting permanent residence while an in absentia order was outstanding was discovered. The US Government served a new Notice to Appear and started a new removal proceeding. This time they pursued the misrepresentation that occurred prior to the earlier admission. I successfully argued that they had the chance to do that in a prior case and chose not to. I argued that administrative res judicata applied. The Immigration Judge agreed. Eventually the case was administratively closed and returned to USCIS where the client secured a waiver for other grounds of inadmissibility and was granted permanent residence.

Immigration

In the Matter of [NAME WITHHELD-Immigration Court Level-Non-Public]

Jan 01, 2006

OUTCOME: Win at the Immigration Court level.

Clients were non residents applying for cancellation of removal for non permanent residents. Successfully argued the clients' children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship because t ... he children had peanut allergies and the parents were from a third world country that did not have food regulations such as those here, or a regulatory body such as the FDA. The children could be exposed to peanuts in their diet and not know it, which could lead to airway obstruction and death. Healthcare was also poor in the home country. The Immigration Judge agreed and granted both parents cancellation of removal and lawful permanent residence.

Immigration

In re [NAME WIHHELD-Non Public AAO Case]

Jan 01, 2006

OUTCOME: Win at the Administrative Appeals Unit level.

This case was received from other counsel on appeal who requested assistance. The Petitioner sought First Preference status for a multi national executive or manager. The US Government asked for a mo ... re detailed job description and when that was delivered by prior counsel, the US Government denied the petition on the grounds the Petitioner changed the job description. Our argument was that the description was not changed and that the Petitioner only provided more details as requested. The Administrative Appeals Office reversed the decision and the employee was granted lawful permanent residence.

Immigration

State v. Abdullahi, 607 NW2d 561 (ND 2000)

Mar 21, 2000

OUTCOME: Court ruled against us. Our position was later vindicated by the US Supreme Court in Padilla v Kentucky.

I argued that a criminal defendant must be told that he could be deported prior to entering a knowing, intelligent and voluntary plea. Immigration consequences were always considered collateral conseq ... uences and, as such, the defendant did not need to be informed. The North Dakota Supreme Court ruled against us. However, the basic premise of our argument was vindicated more than a decade later in the US Supreme Court decision entitled Padilla v. Kentucky. Defendants now must be informed of the certain immigration consequences of their plea.

Immigration

In the Matter of [NAME WITHHELD-Unpublished Decision]

N/A

OUTCOME: Win at the Immigration Court level.

The Respondent was convicted of an aggravated felony. At the time of his conviction in the mid-1980's, non-citizens could get what was called 212 (c) relief. INA 212 (c) relief was repealed in 1996 a ... nd the US Government sought to deport my client in 1999. I argued at trial and on appeal that the repeal of 212(c) was not retroactive. While the case was pending at the Board of Immigration Appeals, the US Supreme Court decided St. Cyr v. INS in which it agreed with our position. Our case was remanded and the client was granted 212(c) relief by an immigration judge. The case took 5 years, but the clients was successful in keeping his permanent residence.

David J. Chapman's Legal Cases (5)

In the Matter of [NAME WITHHELD-Immigration Court Level-Non-Public]

In the Matter of [NAME WITHHELD-Immigration Court Level-Non-Public]

In re [NAME WIHHELD-Non Public AAO Case]

State v. Abdullahi, 607 NW2d 561 (ND 2000)

In the Matter of [NAME WITHHELD-Unpublished Decision]