Boston, MA
Immigration Lawyer at Boston, MA
Practice Areas: Immigration, Criminal Defense ... +2 more
OUTCOME: The court ruled in our favor
Established that the U.S. District Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the application for naturalization upon the filing of complaint and USCIS may not continue to process an application independent ... ly.
OUTCOME: The court ruled in our favor
Defined the limits on claims of asylum based on forced conscription.
OUTCOME: the court found in our favor.
An individual who was a Legal Permanent Resident in the U.S. applied for naturalization with the USCIS (U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services). The alien went to Canada to pursue an opportunity to st ... udy in a university's dental program and attempted to complete her naturalization application before her departure date, but it was unreasonably delayed by the USCIS. The alien obtained resident status in Canada but always maintained her Legal Permanent Resident status in the U.S. We argued that despite the fact she was temporarily residing in Canada she was still eligible to be granted citizenship in the U.S.
OUTCOME: The court ruled in our favor.
A plaintiff filed a writ of mandamus against the U.S.C.I.S. (U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services) because it was taking more than 2 years to adjudicate his green card application (immigration has t ... o adjudicate applications in a timely manner). After he filed his complaint, he alleged that USCIS threatened his wife and coerced her into signing documents that provided the grounds for the denial of his residency application. After denying his residency application, immigration moved to dismiss his law suit, stating that the court no longer had jurisdiction to review the matter because his application had been denied and therefore the adjudication was complete. Our office filed an opposition to immigration’s motion dismiss and convinced the court that because the denial was allegedly based on improper government conduct, it is invalid and the District Court has jurisdiction to review the matter.
OUTCOME: The case was denied but established precedent
An alien who was deported from the United States, subsequently married a U.S. citizen. He applied to have his deportation case reopened based upon his marriage and the Board of Immigration appeals deni ... ed his request. This denial was appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and the court ruled that the denial of an alien’s motion to reopen deportation proceedings based upon marriage to a U.S. Citizen is only proper if (1) the alien fails to establish the bona fides of the marriage pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a) or (2) if in its discretion the government’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious nor predicated upon a misinterpretation of applicable law.
OUTCOME: The court found in our favor
A restraining order was obtained against a defendant; however, the order was never served on him. Subsequently, the defendant and two friends, took his child without permission, and attempted to return ... to Florida with his child. Our office filed a motion to dismiss charges related to the violation of the restraining order, since there was no evidence that the restraining order had been served on our client. The court found in our favor, because the grand jury heard no evidence relating to defendant's knowledge of the terms of the restraining order, the evidence was insufficient to sustain the indictment for violation of a restraining order. (Mass. Gen. Laws chapter 209A, § 7.)
OUTCOME: The court ruled in our favor
Established the rights of step-children to be treated under the immigration law as any other child