Attorney Charles Learned Ala Medina's Legal Cases

Immigration

I-821D DACA Approved Despite Client’s In Absentia Removal Order

Mar 21, 2013

OUTCOME: USCIS approved the DACA.

The June 15, 2012 memorandum of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano paved the way for the deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) program for individuals who meet the entry, physical presence and educ ... ation requirements. Subsequent USCIS guidance confirmed that individuals who are in removal proceedings, have a final removal order, or have a grant of voluntary departure may apply for DACA consideration. Client came to the U.S. in March 2007 as a conditional resident based on her mother’s marriage to Client’s U.S. Citizen step-father. Client and her mother failed to remove the conditions on their residence. Hence, they were both placed in removal proceedings without their knowledge. In April 2010, the Immigration Judge ordered Client’s removal because she failed to attend her removal hearing. In November 2012, Client retained our services for her DACA application. It was then that we found out that she was ordered removed in absentia. We filed the application and explained how she merited favorable discretion despite the removal order. In March 2013, USCIS approved Client’s DACA application and issued her work authorization. For now she does not have to worry about her removal and could focus on her studies and work.

Immigration

I-130 & I-485 Approvals-Client was an Arriving Alien Paroled into the U.S.

Jan 16, 2013

OUTCOME: USCIS approved the I-130 and I-485.

In 1996, Client arrived in the U.S. and applied for admission. However, immigration authorities at the port of entry placed her in exclusion proceedings and paroled her into the U.S. so she could atten ... d her exclusion hearings. At the hearing, Client requested the Immigration Judge (IJ) to withdraw her application for admission and to allow her to leave the U.S. on her own. The IJ granted her request but she never left because her young children were living in the U.S. In 2012, Client’s U.S. Citizen (USC) son turned 21 years of age. Client retained our services to help her apply for a green card. The USC son filed an I-130 petition for her and Client filed her I-485 adjustment application. We explained to USCIS that it may consider Client’s I-485 if she met other requirements because she was paroled into the U.S. The IJ had no jurisdiction to consider her I-485. We also emphasized that the outcome of her exclusion hearing did not disqualify her from adjusting status. USCIS eventually agreed with our arguments. USCIS approved Client’s I-485. She now has her green card after more than 10 years of living in the U.S. after her exclusion proceedings.

Immigration

I-360 VAWA Approval After Tough RFE (Female Applicant)

Jan 02, 2013

OUTCOME: USCIS approved the I-360 VAWA.

In 2010, Client filed an I-485 adjustment application based on her husband’s I-130 petition. However, husband abused Client during their marriage. Husband also failed to appear at Client’s I-485 a ... djustment interview because the authorities were pursuing him due to his drug-related offenses. USCIS denied Client’s I-485 application. Through prior counsel, Client filed an I-360 battered-spouse petition. Client submitted a sufficiently documented I-360 petition. However, despite Client’s detailed statement, USCIS was not convinced that Client had suffered extreme cruelty. USCIS also doubted whether Client married her husband in good faith. Thus, USCIS issued a request for evidence (RFE), Client then retained our services to respond to the RFE. We provided a detailed rebuttal in our response. We pointed to each instance of abuse documented in Client’s previously submitted statement. We also explained how these incidents cumulatively constituted abuse. We showed why the marriage was bona fide. In the end, we succeeded in persuading USCIS to approve Client’s I-360 petition.

Immigration

Immigration Judge Reopens Proceedings After Failed N-400 Application

Dec 19, 2012

OUTCOME: IJ reopened the case.

In 2001, Client became a lawful permanent resident (LPR). In 2011, she filed her N-400 naturalization application. In 2012, USCIS denied this N-400 application because it found that an Immigration Judg ... e (IJ) had ordered Client’s removal from the U.S. in 1998. It turned out that the then INS placed Client in removal proceedings due to a failed application that preceded her application for LPR status. After the denial of her N-400, Client retained our services. We explained to Client that she had to file a motion to reopen (MTR) her removal proceedings because, under INA 318, no person with an outstanding removal order may be naturalized and an MTR is the only relief that could annul a removal order at that stage. We filed an MTR based on Client’s failure to receive her notice to appear (NTA) and hearing notice. We were able to persuade the IJ to reopen the proceedings because we showed proof that Client did not receive the NTA and that she was diligent in filing her MTR and had an incentive to appear at the hearing that she missed. Client now has an opportunity to clear all doubts on the validity of her LPR status and pave the way for a successful N-400 application.

Immigration

Immigration Judge Reopens Proceedings After More Than 20 Years

Oct 15, 2012

OUTCOME: IJ reopened the case.

In February 1991, INS placed Client in exclusion proceedings. A month later, the Immigration Judge (IJ) ordered her exclusion from the U.S. in absentia because she failed to attend her hearing. In 1999 ... , Client, through prior counsel, filed a motion to reopen her exclusion proceedings. In 2000, the IJ denied the motion because Client failed to demonstrate her eligibility for relief. In 2012, Client retained our services. In August 2012, Client’s husband filed an I-130 petition on her behalf. In September 2012 while the I-130 petition was still pending, we filed a motion to reopen Client’s exclusion proceedings. Despite the considerable number of years since the issuance of the exclusion order or the denial of the first motion to reopen, the IJ nevertheless reopened the proceedings through the Court’s sua sponte authority. Generally, a motion to reopen may be filed within 90 days of the IJ’s final order and a party is allowed to file only one motion to reopen. Client’s case falls under very narrow exceptions.

Immigration

Immigration Judge Reopens Proceedings Due to Lack of Notice and Despite Vigorous Opposition

Aug 30, 2012

OUTCOME: IJ reopened the case.

Client filed an I-485 adjustment application based on his wife’s petition but this application was pending for years. Client later filed an I-485 based on his daughter’s petition but USCIS denied this ... second I-485 because Client was ordered removed as a result of the denial of first I-485, which Client was unaware of. Client then filed a motion to reopen his second I-485 with USCIS. USCIS reopened the I-485 but during the interview USCIS denied the I-485 due to the outstanding removal order. Confused by USCIS’s actions, Client retained our services. We explained to Client that he had to file a motion to reopen his removal proceedings first and that USCIS made a mistake in reopening his I-485. We filed a motion to reopen with the Immigration Judge (IJ) based on Client’s failure to receive his notice to appear (NTA) and hearing notice. The Government Counsel opposed our motion and insisted that Client was properly notified. However, we were able to persuade the IJ to reopen the proceedings because we showed proof that Client did not receive the NTA and that he was diligent in filing his motion and had an incentive to appear at the hearing that he missed.

Immigration

N-400 Approved- Client was Convicted of Possession of a Firearm

Aug 03, 2012

OUTCOME: USCIS approved the N-400.

An alien applying for naturalization must establish, among other things, that he has good moral character. An alien does not have good moral character if he has been convicted of certain types of offen ... ses. In 1997, Client was convicted for carrying a loaded firearm, without aggravating circumstances, under California law. He was sentenced to probation. In 2012, he filed an N-400 application and disclosed this conviction. USCIS initially approved the N-400 but promptly revoked the approval because the firearm conviction was a ground for deportation. We argued, however, that this conviction did not bar Client from establishing good moral character under immigration laws. We also emphasized that this conviction occurred more than 5 years prior to Client’s N-400 application and was thus outside the statutory period. We also showed that Client has been a law-abiding and benevolent member of his community. The firearm conviction was the only taint in his outstanding reputation. USCIS was not easily swayed. It even considered placing Client in removal proceedings. But after months of waiting, USCIS finally approved the N-400. Client is now a U.S. Citizen.

Immigration

N-400 Approved- Client Arrested But Not Convicted of a Serious Offense

Jul 10, 2012

OUTCOME: USCIS approved the N-400.

An alien applying for naturalization must establish, among other things, that he has good moral character. An alien does not have good moral character if he has been convicted of certain types of offen ... ses or has engaged in certain types of conduct. Knowingly engaging in alien smuggling is a type of conduct that would prevent an alien from establishing good moral character. A conviction is not necessary. Client was briefly detained at the port of entry more than 20 years ago because one of the passengers in the car she was driving to the U.S. was undocumented. Client and her other passengers were unaware of the undocumented status of this person. After investigation, immigration authorities released Client. No charges were filed against her but her FBI records later showed that she was arrested for alien smuggling. In 2012, she filed an N-400 application. She wanted us to help her address the possible issue of alien smuggling during her N-400 interview. We thoroughly prepared Client. At the interview, she explained the circumstances surrounding the incident. We were able to persuade the USCIS officer that Client had good moral character. USCIS approved the N-400.

Immigration

N-400 Approved- Client Arrested But Not Convicted of a Serious Offense

Jul 10, 2012

OUTCOME: USCIS approved the N-400.

An alien applying for naturalization must establish, among other things, that he has good moral character. An alien does not have good moral character if he has been convicted of certain types of offen ... ses or has engaged in certain types of conduct. Knowingly engaging in alien smuggling is a type of conduct that would prevent an alien from establishing good moral character. A conviction is not necessary. Client was briefly detained at the port of entry more than 20 years ago because one of the passengers in the car she was driving to the U.S. was undocumented. Client and her other passengers were unaware of the undocumented status of this person. After investigation, immigration authorities released Client. No charges were filed against her but her FBI records later showed that she was arrested for alien smuggling. In 2012, she filed an N-400 application. She wanted us to help her address the possible issue of alien smuggling during her N-400 interview. We thoroughly prepared Client. At the interview, she explained the circumstances surrounding the incident. We were able to persuade the USCIS officer that Client had good moral character. USCIS approved the N-400.

Immigration

USCIS Reinstates I-130 Petition 16 Years After Petitioner’s Death

Apr 05, 2012

OUTCOME: USCIS Reinstates the I-130 Petition.

An approved I-130 immigrant petition is valid for as long as the petitioner is alive. If the petitioner dies, the petition is automatically revoked. Due to backlogs in the issuance of visa numbers ... , there are cases where the petitioner dies before the beneficiary’s priority date becomes current and before the beneficiary is able to immigrate. When the petitioner dies, the personal loss is magnified by the loss of immigration benefits. Client’s I-130 was filed in 1995 and was approved a few months later. In September 1996, Client’s husband and petitioner died in tragic accident. In 2007, Client tried to request for a reinstatement of this revoked petition through prior counsel. Nothing was ever heard about this request. In 2010, we filed a request for reinstatement on behalf of client based on humanitarian considerations. We explained how Client’s unique circumstances merit the reinstatement of her revoked petition. In April 2012, USCIS reinstated the petition. Client now has an opportunity to apply for a green card after more than 20 years in the U.S. in undocumented status.

Charles Learned Ala Medina's Legal Cases (62)

I-821D DACA Approved Despite Client’s In Absentia Removal Order

I-130 & I-485 Approvals-Client was an Arriving Alien Paroled into the U.S.

I-360 VAWA Approval After Tough RFE (Female Applicant)

Immigration Judge Reopens Proceedings After Failed N-400 Application

Immigration Judge Reopens Proceedings After More Than 20 Years

Immigration Judge Reopens Proceedings Due to Lack of Notice and Despite Vigorous Opposition

N-400 Approved- Client was Convicted of Possession of a Firearm

N-400 Approved- Client Arrested But Not Convicted of a Serious Offense

N-400 Approved- Client Arrested But Not Convicted of a Serious Offense

USCIS Reinstates I-130 Petition 16 Years After Petitioner’s Death