Skip to main content
Jeffrey Adam Devore
Avvo
Pro

Jeffrey Devore’s Legal Cases

9 total

  • Kurapati v. USCIS, ___ F.3d. ___ (11th Cir. 2014)

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Sep 22, 2014
    Outcome:
    Reversed and Remanded to U.S. District Court
    Description:
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reverses U.S. District Court holding that alien beneficiary of an I-140 who has ported to a new employer does have standing to challenge an I-140 revocation by USCIS.
  • Kurapati v. USCIS, 950 F.Supp.2d 1230 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Outcome:
    Dismissed
    Description:
    U.S. District Court held that the alien beneficiary of an I-140 who has ported to a new employer does not have standing to challenge an I-140 revocation by USCIS.
  • Dormescar v. U.S. Attorney General, 690 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2012)

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Outcome:
    Res Judicata did not apply and DHS can amend any part of a Notice to Appear
    Description:
    In this case Mr. Dormescar was placed in removal proceedings as an arriving alien due to old criminal convictions. The Immigration Judge (IJ) ordered him removed. On appeal the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed and terminated the proceedings denying the DHS request for a remand so it could lodge additional charges based other criminal convictions. DHS then filed a second NTA based on new criminal charges once again stating that Mr. Dormescar was an arriving alien to which the IJ agreed and ordered him removed. On appeal to the BIA we argued that the Mr. Dormescar was admitted to the U.S. as a matter of law when the BIA terminated the first proceeding. The BIA agreed but rather than terminating the proceedings as it did before, it remanded the case back to the IJ so that DHS could amended the Notice to Appear. On remand DHS amended the NTA and alleged that Mr. Dormescar had been admitted but was now deportable based upon his criminal conviction. The IJ found that Mr. Dormescar was removable as an aggravated felon and ordered him removed. On appeal to the BIA we argued that the BIA had erred by remanding the case instead of terminating the proceedings and that the case was barred by the legal theory of Res Judicata which prevents DHS from recharging an alien with removability when an alien has already been the subject of a removal proceedings based on the same criminal activity previously charged or one which DHS could have previously charged. The BIA disagreed and affirmed the removal order. On appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals we argued that the BIA acted arbitrarily, disregarded precedent from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the second removal proceedings were barred by Res Judicata, and that the BIA was without authority to allow DHS to amend the NTA from alleging the client was an arriving alien to one who was present in the U.S. but deportable due to a criminal conviction. The 11th Circuit disagreed with our argument and affirmed Mr. Dormescar's order of removal holding Res Judicata did not apply and that DHS has the ability to amend any part of an NTA. In doing so it created a conflict between itself and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Matter of Margaret Pirovano

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Outcome:
    Labor Certification Denial Reversed
    Description:
    The Certifying Officer of the Office of Foreign Labor Certification in the Department of Labor denied an application for temporary labor certification under the H-2B program claiming that Ms. Pirovano unlawfully rejected a qualified U.S. worker. We were able to establish to the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) that the applicant in question was rejected for lawfully related reasons and that the CO's decision was erroneous. The Board agreed and entered an order reversing the decision of the CO and ordering the CO to grant labor certification.
  • MacLean v. Napolitano

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Outcome:
    Court Grants Writ of Mandamus Against USCIS
    Description:
    Victory in Florida! The Court finds in Mrs. MacLean's favor, stating, "Before this Court is an issue of law regarding Plaintiff Juana MacLean's residency status in the United States. Coined by Plaintiff as the 'widow penalty,' this issue arises when a United States citizen petitions the government to adjust the status of the alien spouse, but dies before the government actually adjudicates the request. The Government takes the position that a petition dies with the death of the petitioning United States citizen. The surviving spouses claim the Government's position is contrary to the law. The Court agrees."
  • Soler v U.S. Attorney General, 258 Fed.Appx 295 (11th Cir. 2007)

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Dec 10, 2007
    Outcome:
    Order or Removal Vacated and Client Granted Asylum
    Description:
    While represented by prior counsel, Mr. Bolivar Soler applied for asylum before the Immigration Court which denied his application and ordered him removed (deported) from the United States. The Immigration Court's order was appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals which affirmed the order of removal. Mr. Bolivar Soler then retained our office to file a Petiton For Review with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court found that Mr. Bolivar Soler had established a well founded fear of persecution and that the BIA decision was erroneous. The Court vacated the order of of removal and remanded the case back to the BIA. The BIA subsequently remanded the case back to the Immigration Court which granted Mr. Bolivar Soler asylum in the United States.
  • Matter of [Client Name Redacted For Privacy]

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Outcome:
    Denial Reversed and H-1B Visa Obtained for Client
    Description:
    Company filed an H-1B visa petition for its sole employee and owner which the USCIS Vermont Service Center denied stating that there was no employer/employee relationship. On appeal the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office reversed and approved the petition. Read the decision at https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwtpfEvsUiDdMzVmNzE3OGQtNmIzNC00MjRiLTg5MmUtZjBlN2ZlYjEyN2Qx&hl=en_US&authkey=CNPly-0H
  • Dorelien v. U.S. Attorney General, 317 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2003)

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Jan 13, 2003
    Outcome:
    Stay of Removal Denied - Decision Overruled by U.S. Supreme Court
    Description:
    In this case we moved the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay of removal while our client's appeal was pending before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. We argued that in order to obtain a stay of removal for our client we had to show the "traditional stay factors" of 1) the likelihood of success on the merits; 2) the injury to the applicant if the stay is denied; 3) the injury to the government if the stay is granted; and 4) the public interest. The Court disagreed and denied the stay stating that we were required to show by "clear and convincing evidence" that our client should be granted a stay of removal and that the tradtional stay factors were no longer applicable as the requirements for a stay had been modified by Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. This was a virtually impossible standard to meet and essentially required an alien to prove his whole case before having the opportunity to review the adminstrative record in full and prepare his brief on appeal. The holding of this case was eventually overruled by the United States Supreme Court in Niken v. Holder, 551 U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1729 (2009) in which the Supreme Court agreed with us by holding that the traditional stay factors applied and that it was "loath to conclude that Congress would, without clearly expressing such a purpose, deprive the Court of Appeals of its customary powers to stay orders under review."
  • Ramsey v. INS, 55 F.3d 580 (11th Cir. 1995)

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Jun 21, 1995
    Outcome:
    Attempted Lewd Assault in Florida is A Crime of Violence
    Description:
    Mr. Ramsey was convicted of two counts of attempted lewd assault in Florida and ordered deported as an aggravated felon after his application for a waiver of deportability pursuant to Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was denied. We argued on appeal to the Board of Immigraton Appeals (BIA) that one or Mr. Ramsey's convictions was not an aggravated felony becuase it occured prior to the 1990 amendmendments to the INA which created the crime of violence aggravated felony ground and that his second conviction was not a crime of violence. We also argued notwithstanding that Mr. Ramsey should have been granted a 212(c) waiver in the exercise of discretion. The BIA reviewed the case de novo and agreed the the first conviction was not an aggravated felony due to its age, but that the second conviction was a crime of violence thereby making Mr. Ramsey deportable as an aggravated felon. It further held that Mr. Ramsey was not deserving of a 212(c) waiver in the exercise of discretion. On appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals the Court held that the Florida Crime of Attempted Lewd Assault was a crime of violence and therefore Mr., Ramsey's second conviction was an aggravated felony. It further held that the BIA had not abused its discretion in denying the 212(c) waiver.