Successful Removal Defense: Appeals, Reconsiderations, and Rescinded Bail Policies

Facing removal proceedings can be an overwhelming and complex experience, but with the right legal strategies, it is possible to overcome these challenges. At the Law Office of Alexander R. Vail, we specialize in providing effective removal defense and have successfully helped many clients navigate through difficult cases.

Our recent and past cases highlight where we sustained appeals, secured case remands for reconsideration, and successfully fought against policies denying noncitizens’ rights to post bail. We are committed to defending the rights of individuals facing deportation and securing a favorable outcome.

Successful Removal Defense: Appeals, Reconsiderations, and Rescinded Bail Policies

APPEAL SUSTAINED Matter of A.L.A. (2022)

A.L.A., a native and citizen of the Philippines, is a permanent resident of the United States whom the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) placed in removal proceedings because of his conviction for child abuse, neglect, or abandonment in violation of section 200.508(1) of the Nevada Revised Statutes. The Notice to Appear (“Form I-862”) that DHS filed at the Las Vegas Immigration Court charged A.L.A. with two grounds of removability: the first charge was under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), as an alien convicted of an “aggravated felony” as that term is defined in section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Act; and the second charge was under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Act, as an alien convicted of a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.

Alex filed a motion to dismiss arguing that a conviction under section 200.508(1) of the Nevada Revised Statutes does not constitute either a conviction for an aggravated felony crime of violence as defined in 101(a)(43)(F) of the Act or a conviction for a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment as that phrase is to be understood in the context of section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Act. Alternatively, Alex argued that A.L.A. was still eligible to seek cancellation of removal for certain permanent residents in accordance with section 240A(a) of the Act because even if his conviction did fall within section 237(a)(2)(E)(i)’s parameters, it certainly did not fall within the aggravated felony definition set out in section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Act. The immigration judge disagreed, pretermitted A.L.A.’s Application for Cancellation of Removal for Certain Permanent Residents (“Form EOIR-42A”), and she ordered A.L.A. removed.

But then Alex filed an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the Board ultimately sustained the appeal. It concluded—as Alex had argued—that section 200.508(1) of the Nevada Revised Statutes is an indivisible statute that is categorically overbroad in relation to the aggravated felony definition set out in section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Act. The immigration judge was therefore wrong to have upheld the aggravated felony charge of removability. The Board then remanded the matter so that A.L.A. could be heard on the merits of his Form EOIR-42A.

CASE REMANDED TO AGENCY FOR RECONSIDERATION Rosas Aguirre v. Garland, No. 20-73067 (9th Cir. 2021)

Ms. Rosas Aguirre is a native and citizen of El Salvador who was a poultry farmer in El Salvador. Unfortunately, as a poultry farmer doing business in the country, she came to the attention of the Mara Salvatrucha (“MS”), a transnational gang responsible for much of the violence and crime endemic in El Salvador. The MS extorted Mrs. Rosas Aguirre by imposing a “tax” on her business. When she was told that failure to comply would result in the death of her children, she decided to flee the country with her children.

Unrepresented by an attorney she presented her asylum claim on her own to an immigration judge, who subsequently denied her asylum application and ordered her removal. She filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals, but in this endeavor, she was also unsuccessful; the Board affirmed the immigration judge’s decision and the order of removal.

With an administratively final order of removal, she approached Alex for assistance. Alex filed a Petition for Review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit arguing that substantial evidence did not support the agency’s factual findings and that the agency did not abide by the relevant legal standard. The Ninth Circuit ultimately remanded the case to the agency to afford Ms. Rosas Aguirre the opportunity to present her asylum claim again.

POLICY DENYING NONCITIZENS RIGHT TO POST BAIL RESCINDED Palafox-Lugo v. Eighth Judicial District Court et al., No. 2:18-cv-01796-APG-GWF (D. Nev. 2018)

Alex filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against both the Eighth Judicial District Court and the Las Vegas Justice Court, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The issue was each court’s policy of denying bail to noncitizen detainees with detainers placed on them by the Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement (colloquially known as “ICE holds”). This policy stemmed from “standing” administrative orders issued by each state court—specifically, by the Eighth Judicial District Court in September of 2001 and by the Las Vegas Justice Court in February of 2002.

Shortly after suit was filed, counsel for both the Eighth Judicial District Court and the Las Vegas Justice Court conferred with Alex and agreed to settle the matter by having the court rescind these standing orders initially issued by the state courts that limited a noncitizen’s ability to post bail.

On October 8, 2018, the Eighth Judicial District Court issued its order, rescinding the 2001 order and directing the clerk to accept bail bonds or cash bail without regard to an individual’s immigration status. A little more than one week later, the Las Vegas Justice Court followed suit.

If you or someone you know is facing removal proceedings or immigration-related challenges, don’t face them alone. At the Law Office of Alexander R. Vail, we are dedicated to providing comprehensive legal support and defense for our clients. Whether it's appealing a decision, seeking reconsideration, or challenging unjust policies, we have the experience and expertise to help. Call us today at (725) 221-5998 or contact us online to schedule a consultation. We are here to help you protect your rights and secure your future in the United States.