Luke Habeeb Abrusley

My 2 star is not about the attorneys. No two cases are the same and that's because what might work for Tom doesn't work for anyone else. And this is why each case requires unique approach, experience, and dedication. So the kind of regurgitation that I read about here is unacceptable because of this ...fact. I do understand there are some situations such as the availability of §212 (c) that can be argued for in many case sharing similar fact. But again, it all depends on what the client has to show. Being statutorily eligible is one thing but showing equities to convince the judges to exercise a favorable it discretion to get the waiver is something entirely different. It's just the way the law is written. But hopefully, everyone who is reading this would realize that they must take charge of their own case. It's time-consuming and frustrating and can sometimes feel hopeless. But if you read and study what has happened based on your case you'll get a better understanding and appreciation for how you should approach your case. This is specifically for people who have already been deported and they were disallowed from seeking 212 (C) when many people like myself were told that once your deported and outside of the US, your motion to reopen if one was filed is considered "withdrawn"This is certainly been my experience over 20 years. But now that regulation, 8 CFR §3.2(d) is being reconsidered in light of all the USSSC decisions relating to the availability of §212 (C). But there is hope, especially when the Supreme Court (USSSC ) told the 5th cir. In one of two cases that they do have jurisdiction, but the 5th cir. is still fighting many petitioners that they have the show due diligence that they went about seeking help to get the relief or have their cases reopen. Due diligence can be the efforts made to contact attorney, filed papers in the courts, whatever steps were taken to try to get the case before the court when they were always saying the 5th cir. and the BIA and the immigration judge never had jurisdiction not to the person was removed to even reopen the case or to entertain a motion for relief. Any combination of things. They love to say they don't have jurisdiction in. That has been the problem for many people including myself. I know this argument very well. But since the USSSC had sent Reyes Mata back to the Fifth Circuit some time ago the 5th cir has conceded they do Jurisdiction. But it's the arbitrarily & capriciously findings almost like a coin toss which is not the way to decide Who should get relief and who shouldn't. Going read the cases on Scotus blog. Educate yourself so that you can advocate for your freedom and work collaboratively with your attorney. There are so many but the latest that's forthcoming may help a lot of people dealing with whether or not they were convicted. What they played guilty to, and whether or not there notice to appear as faulty dust rendering that their removal proceedings, especially those already executed and they are out of the country can be terminated because I know the USSSC is going to say it violate the intent of Congress therefore, the removal was illegal because the immigration court did not have jurisdiction when they did not adhere to the requirements of the law to issued a notice to appear leaving out the date and time. And if anyone reading this request you are file to a FOIA request to the EO IR and see I can bet you your notice to appear if you already are out of the country does not have a date or time. And once you learn that you must act quickly to get an attorney or try to file a motion to reopen on your own by searching for a motion to reopen from the American immigration Law Association or one of those organizations. It is very difficult, but hey, that's the best you may be able to do; do not waste money with lawyers who necessarily either unable to help or simply just not up to snuff to do it.Good luck everyone. December 3, 2020 12:31 AM