Client is rescued from disastrous consequences

Mr. Cao entered the US on a K-1 visa in 2003.  He married the sponsor and filed I-485, adjustment of status.  His application was approved and later his I-751, removal of condition, was also approved.  His wife divorced him in 2006.

During the marriage, Cao's wife gave birth to a child.  Cao is not the father.

After the divorce, cao married another woman in China.  Cao and his second wife has a child together, born while he was still married to his first wife.

In 2012, Cao, still a permanent resident,  filed I-130 visa petition for his wife and child.  The USCIS scheduled an interview in early 2014.  At this time, Cao retained us.

After we reviewed the case, we determined that the USCIS had every reason to suspect that the  first marriage was for immigration purposes.  Not only cao may lose his I-130 visa petition for his wife and child, he may face deportation for marriage fraud.

Preparation for the interview was time consuming.  Unfortunately client did not have much documentation to support the first marriage.

After the interview, we waited for more than 7 months.  Then we contacted the USCIS director for status.  two weeks later we received the second interview notice.

Again we prepared the client for this interview.

The second interview was conducted by an officer and her supervisor.  Lots of questions were asked about the first marriage.  Client was well prepared.

Shortly after the second interview, USCIS approved Cao's I-130 visa petition.

Lesson learned here:  a devoted and competent lawyer makes a huge difference.

BIA grants our Motion to Reopen and Remand 7 years after deportation order was issued.

Board of Immigration Appeals granted our motion to reopen and remand in a case where our client was represented by another counsel who committed terrible error which prejudiced client in her removal proceedings.  The BIA found that although the motion is untimely, we submitted sufficient evidence to toll the deadline based on ineffective assistance of counsel claim against the attorney.

 Within 5 months of the remand, we successfully helped our client to receive permanent resident status based on her marriage to an LPR husband. (Click to see)

BIA remanded San Francisco CIS Field Director’s decision.

Board of Immigration Appeals recently remanded an I-130 appeal for further proceedings.  We represented our client in his I-130 petition.  CIS denied his petition.  The attached decision from BIA outlined the basic facts of the case and CIS flowed decision denying the I-130 visa petition. (Click to see)

So far, we have been successful in all of our BIA appeals from San Francisco CIS denials.

Zhang v. Ashcroft

In a precedent decision in which our firm represented the petitioner, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Zhang v. Ashcroft rejected immigration judge’s finding that the respondent could avoid persecution by practicing his belief in the privacy of his own home.  The court states that to require respondent “to practice his belief in secret is contrary to our basic principles of religious freedom and the protection of religious refugees”.  This case is very important in that the Asylum Office cannot deny  asylum application by asking an applicant to practice his belief at home in order to avoid persecution. To read the case, please click the link:   

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1458856.html

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/type,CASELAW,USA_CA_9,CHN,41c6d2fe4,0.html

In re Guang Li FU, 23 I&N Dec. 985 (BIA 2006)

A BIA precedent decision established that 237(a)(1)(H) waiver is available to alien who was not in possession of valid immigrant visa but did not commit fraud.  Prior to this case, alien would not receive waiver under this provision because  ICE would not charge the alien with fraud if it thought the alien would seek waiver under this law.  To read the case, please click the link here.

2. In a precedent decision in which our firm represented the petitioner, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Zhang v. Ashcroft rejected immigration judge’s finding that the respondent could avoid persecution by practicing his belief in the privacy of his own home.  The court states that to require respondent “to practice his belief in secret is contrary to our basic principles of religious freedom and the protection of religious refugees”.  This case is very important in that the Asylum Office cannot deny  asylum application by asking an applicant to practice his belief at home in order to avoid persecution. To read the case, please click the link:   

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1458856.html

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/type,CASELAW,USA_CA_9,CHN,41c6d2fe4,0.html