Permanent Resident Status Saved: Successfully Terminated Removal Proceedings in Nevada Removal Case

When an individual faces removal proceedings before the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the stakes cannot be higher. Deportation threatens not only legal status but also family unity, employment, and the life built in the United States. In Matter of W.J.P. (2025), the Law Office of Alexander R. Vail achieved a complete victory for a permanent resident facing deportation based on a decades-old criminal conviction. After more than four years of persistent legal advocacy, including two successful appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, removal proceedings were terminated and W.J.P.'s permanent resident status was preserved.

APPEAL SUCCESSFUL & REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS TERMINATED Matter of W.J.P. (2025)

W.J.P., a permanent resident of the United States, was convicted in 2004 of battery with use of a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.481(2)(e)(2). More than fifteen years later, the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") initiated removal proceedings, charging W.J.P. as an alien deportable under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (hereinafter referred to as the "INA"). DHS ICE argued—and both the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed—that W.J.P. was convicted of an "aggravated felony" as that term is defined in section 101(a)(43)(F) of the INA. On behalf of W.J.P., Alex timely filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On 23 February 2021, the Ninth Circuit remanded the matter to the Board of Immigration Appeals at the request of Alex, who filed a Motion to Remand shortly after W.J.P.'s conviction—the conviction upon which the order of removal was predicated—was vacated.

With the case before it again, the Board requested additional briefing from the parties. On behalf of W.J.P., Alex timely filed a brief in support of the position that proceedings should be terminated. DHS filed nothing. Nonetheless, on 8 October 2021, the Board issued a final decision finding that the vacatur of W.J.P.'s conviction did not have an impact on his removability. On behalf of W.J.P., Alex again sought review with the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the Board had placed the burden of proof on the wrong party. See Nath v. Gonzalez, 467 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). On 5 January 2022, the Ninth Circuit again remanded the matter to the Board.

After remand, the Board took fourteen months to issue a briefing schedule. On W.J.P.'s behalf, Alex yet again timely filed a brief in support of his position that proceedings should be terminated. DHS filed nothing. It then took the Board twenty-eight months to issue the decision that brought the case back down to the Immigration Judge. The Board instructed the Immigration Judge to consider in the first instance whether W.J.P.'s new conviction under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 202.287 rendered W.J.P. deportable.

Back in front of the Immigration Judge, Alex filed a Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings on two bases: first, that the Notice to Appear that initially placed W.J.P. in removal proceedings was no longer a legally sufficient document that could justify the proceedings; and second, that DHS failed to take any action that would demonstrate an intent to continue pursuing W.J.P.'s removal despite having had over forty-three months to do so. The Immigration Judge agreed and terminated removal proceedings. W.J.P.'s permanent resident status has been saved.

Understanding the Legal Challenge

W.J.P., a lawful permanent resident, was convicted in 2004 of battery with use of a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm under Nevada Revised Statute § 200.481(2)(e)(2). More than fifteen years after this conviction, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) initiated removal proceedings, arguing that W.J.P. was deportable under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The government's position relied on classifying the conviction as an aggravated felony under section 101(a)(43)(F) of the INA. This classification is particularly serious in immigration law because it can bar most forms of relief from deportation and make an individual permanently inadmissible to the United States. Both the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals initially agreed with this characterization, ordering W.J.P.'s removal.

Strategic Appellate Advocacy

Attorney Alexander R. Vail's strategic approach involved multiple levels of advocacy. The first critical development came when W.J.P.'s underlying criminal conviction, the very foundation of the removal order, was vacated in state court. Recognizing this pivotal change, Attorney Vail filed a Motion to Remand with the Ninth Circuit, which granted the motion on February 23, 2021.

Upon remand, despite Attorney Vail's comprehensive brief arguing for termination and DHS filing nothing in response, the Board issued a decision maintaining that the conviction vacatur did not affect removability. This decision contained a critical legal error: the Board had improperly placed the burden of proof on W.J.P. rather than on the government.

In immigration law, the burden of proving deportability rests squarely with DHS. This principle was firmly established in Nath v. Gonzalez, 467 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2006), a binding precedent in the Ninth Circuit. Attorney Vail again petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review, focusing on improper burden allocation. The appellate court agreed, and on January 5, 2022, issued its second remand order, directing the Board to properly apply burden of proof principles.

Overcoming Administrative Delays

After the second remand, the Board took fourteen months to issue a briefing schedule. Attorney Vail filed another timely brief advocating for termination. DHS again filed nothing. The Board then took an additional twenty-eight months to remand the matter back to the Immigration Judge, instructing evaluation of whether W.J.P.'s new conviction under Nevada Revised Statute § 202.287 rendered him deportable.

These extended delays demonstrate the often-frustrating pace of immigration proceedings. Throughout this period, Attorney Vail maintained vigilant advocacy, ensuring that each deadline was met and every legal argument was preserved for review.

Achieving Final Victory: Successfully Terminated Removal Proceedings 

Returning to Immigration Court, Alexander Vail filed a comprehensive Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings based on two independent legal grounds that ultimately proved successful.

First, the Notice to Appear that initially placed W.J.P. in removal proceedings was no longer legally sufficient to justify continued proceedings. Recent Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedents have established strict requirements for Notices to Appear, and defective notices can deprive Immigration Courts of jurisdiction.

Second, DHS had failed to take any meaningful action demonstrating intent to continue pursuing removal despite having more than forty-three months to do so. Throughout the protracted proceedings, DHS repeatedly failed to file responsive briefs or otherwise prosecute its case, effectively abandoning their pursuit of W.J.P.'s removal.

The Immigration Judge carefully considered both arguments and granted the motion, terminating removal proceedings in their entirety. W.J.P.'s lawful permanent resident status was fully preserved, bringing to a close more than four years of legal proceedings.

Key Legal Principles in Immigration Defense

This case illustrates several critical principles in immigration and deportation defense:

Post-Conviction Relief in Immigration Cases: Successfully vacating or modifying a criminal conviction can have profound implications for immigration status. According to the American Immigration Council, criminal convictions are the leading cause of deportation for otherwise law-abiding permanent residents. When a conviction is vacated for substantive reasons, it may eliminate the basis for removal.

Burden of Proof Requirements: The government bears the burden of proving deportability by clear and convincing evidence. Immigration attorneys must vigilantly protect this right and challenge any improper burden-shifting, as demonstrated by the second Ninth Circuit remand in this case.

Federal Appellate Review: Federal circuit court review provides an essential check on administrative immigration decisions. The Ninth Circuit twice corrected legal errors in this case, demonstrating the value of persistent appellate advocacy in immigration matters.

Jurisdictional Defects: Defective charging documents, including improperly issued Notices to Appear, can deprive Immigration Courts of jurisdiction. According to recent interpretations by the U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review, strict compliance with statutory requirements is mandatory.

Government Abandonment of Proceedings: When DHS fails to prosecute its case diligently over an extended period, courts may find that the government has effectively abandoned the proceedings, warranting termination.

Attorney Alexander R. Vail's Experience and Approach

The matter of W.J.P. and his successfully terminated removal proceedings, demonstrates the critical importance of experienced legal representation. Over more than four years, this case required:

• Strategic monitoring of parallel state court criminal proceedings to identify opportunities for post-conviction relief

• Timely filing of multiple appellate petitions with comprehensive supporting briefs before the Ninth Circuit

• Deep knowledge of federal circuit court precedent on burden of proof and procedural requirements

• Recognition of jurisdictional defects in government charging documents that could provide grounds for termination

• Persistent advocacy through years of administrative delays, ensuring no deadline was missed and every argument preserved

• Strategic motion practice that identified and successfully argued multiple independent grounds for relief

Attorney Alexander R. Vail has successfully represented clients before Immigration Courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and federal appellate courts throughout his practice. His approach emphasizes thorough legal research, strategic case planning, and persistent advocacy at every level of the immigration system. Each case receives personalized attention with detailed analysis of all potential avenues for relief.

Immigration Defense Services in Nevada

If you or a loved one has received a Notice to Appear or is facing deportation proceedings in Las Vegas, Nevada, or elsewhere, immediate legal consultation is essential. The Law Office of Alexander R. Vail focuses on immigration law, including:

• Removal defense and deportation proceedings before Immigration Courts

• Appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals

• Federal circuit court immigration appeals, including Ninth Circuit petitions for review

• Post-conviction relief strategies to protect immigration status

• Cancellation of removal applications for permanent and non-permanent residents

• Waivers of inadmissibility and deportability

• Defense against aggravated felony charges and crime-based removal grounds

Every immigration case requires personalized strategy, detailed legal analysis, and unwavering commitment to protecting your rights and your future in the United States. Attorney Vail's practice emphasizes thorough preparation, strategic advocacy, and persistent representation throughout all stages of immigration proceedings.

About the Law Office of Alexander R. Vail

Located in Las Vegas, Nevada, the Law Office of Alexander R. Vail provides dedicated representation in complex immigration matters. Attorney Vail's practice emphasizes removal defense, appellate litigation, and post-conviction relief strategies that protect clients' immigration status. The firm serves clients throughout Nevada and represents individuals in proceedings before immigration authorities nationwide, including appearances before Immigration Courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and federal appellate courts.

Navigating the complexities of immigration law requires experience and expertise. Call us at (725) 221-5998 or reach us online for a free consultation.

This case summary is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every immigration case depends on unique facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. If you need legal assistance, please contact a qualified immigration attorney to discuss your specific situation.