Successful Removal Defense: Rescinding Orders, Avoiding Removal, and Securing Permanent Residency

Facing removal proceedings can be an overwhelming and stressful experience. The Law Office of Alexander R. Vail has a proven track record of successfully helping clients navigate these challenges. In this post, we will highlight several notable cases where our expert legal team successfully achieved favorable outcomes, including rescinding removal orders, avoiding deportation, and securing permanent residency for our clients. These victories reflect our commitment to providing exceptional removal defense services, whether through challenging inadmissibility charges, securing waivers, or fighting for clients' rights to remain in the U.S. We are proud of the hard work and dedication that led to these successful results and are here to help you achieve the same.

Successful Removal Defense: Rescinding Orders, Avoiding Removal, and Securing Permanent Residency

REMOVAL ORDER RESCINDED AND CASE REOPENED Matter of J.J.O. (2022)

J.J.O is a native and citizen of El Salvador who was detained by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) shortly after he entered the United States more than fifteen years ago. Upon his release from immigration custody, DHS provided J.J.O. with a Notice to Appear (“Form I-862”) that failed to specify the date and time of his hearing. After he was released from immigration custody, J.J.O. ultimately traveled to another state and failed to update his address. So, when the Las Vegas Immigration Court did send out a hearing notice to the address it had for him, J.J.O did not receive it and therefore failed to attend the initial hearing scheduled. Consequently, the Court ordered him removed in absentia. Despite having been told for years that his case was a lost cause, he persevered in his efforts to find counsel to help him, and he eventually came across Alex. Alex filed a motion to reopen J.J.O.’s removal proceedings. Relying on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Singh v. Garland, 24 F.4th 1315 (2022), Alex argued that the in absentia order issued in J.J.O.’s case is subject to rescission pursuant to section 240(b)(5)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Immigration Judge agreed, reopened J.J.O.’s case, and rescinded the order of removal that had been issued fifteen years before. 

REMOVAL AVOIDED AND PETITION TO REMOVE CONDITIONS ON RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of N.I. (2021)

N.I. is a native and citizen of Croatia who had been placed in removal proceedings after U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied his Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence (“Form I-751”) upon concluding that N.I.’s marriage was not bona fide. Having been represented by a previous attorney with whom N.I. was extremely dissatisfied, he hired Alex to assist him. Since it was well over a year since USCIS denied the Form I-751, Alex explained that the agency was unreasonably delaying the initiation of removal proceedings against N.I., which—as intimidating as it sounds—was only way that N.I. could renew his Form I-751 and restore his permanent resident status, which USCIS had “terminated.” With N.I.’s consent, Alex filed a Complaint for Mandamus and Injunctive Relief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, arguing that the agency had failed to act pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 216.4(d)(2). Shortly after the civil action was commenced, the agency finally did was it was supposed to do all along, and it issued the Notice to Appear (“Form I-862”) that N.I. had been waiting so long for.

After N.I. was placed in removal proceedings, Alex renewed the petition to remove conditions on residence with a waiver under section 216(c)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. At the individual hearing, Alex presented sufficient evidence to establish that N.I.’s marriage was bona fide at its inception. Having been thoroughly prepared by Alex for the rigorous cross-examination by the government attorney at the hearing, N.I. was able to provide responsive testimony and an adequate explanation for each of the issues that USCIS raised in its decision denying the Form I-751. Satisfied with the evidence presented, the presiding immigration judge granted N.I.’s petition, and N.I. now resides at peace in the United States as a lawful permanent resident.

NOTICE TO APPEAR CANCELLED AND REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS AVOIDED Matter of M.L.G. (2021)

M.L.G. is a native and citizen of the Philippines who been admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident more than three decades ago. Because of a conviction for a minor drug offense in violation of Utah law, he was treated as an “alien seeking admission” under section 101(a)(13)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act when he returned to the United States after a brief trip abroad. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) served M.L.G. with a Notice to Appear (“Form I-862”) charging M.L.G. as an alien inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. M.L.G. immediately hired Alex after he was served with this document. A couple months thereafter, the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (“OPLA”)—the legal wing of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)—agreed to cancel the Form I-862 and not to initiate removal proceedings against M.L.G, noting that M.L.G. did not fall within the Biden Administration’s immigration enforcement priorities. Alex succeeded in saving M.L.G.’s lawful permanent residence and in avoiding removal proceedings altogether.

REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS TERMINATED Matter of B.C.V. (2020)

B.C.V. is a native and citizen of the Philippines who had been convicted of attempt lewdness with a minor under the age of 16 in violation of Nevada law. As a result of this conviction, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) initiated removal proceedings, charging B.C.V. as an alien deportable pursuant to section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years after admission for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed) and two counts under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act (as having been convicted of aggravated felonies). After several motions to dismiss (punctuated by a successful appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals), Alex was able to get the removal proceedings terminated on the basis that the Nevada law under which B.C.V. was convicted did not categorically correspond with any of the grounds of removability that DHS had charged B.C.V. with.

APPLICATION FOR DEFERRAL OF REMOVAL GRANTED Matter of F.N.B (2019)

F.N.B. is a native and citizen of the Philippines who had been granted lawful permanent residence in the United States over two decades ago. But after sustaining a conviction for battery resulting in substantial bodily harm in violation of Nevada law and serving a two-year term of imprisonment, F.N.B. was placed in removal proceedings by the Department of Homeland Security. Because of his struggle with drug abuse and his criminal history of drug-related offenses, F.N.B. feared that he would fall victim to the Duterte Administration’s “War on Drugs” if he were removed to the Philippines. Alex filed an Application for Deferral of Removal under the Convention Against Torture on F.N.B.’s behalf, arguing that it was more likely than not that F.N.B. would be tortured if removed to the Philippines. Satisfied with the evidence presented in support of the application for relief, the presiding immigration judge granted F.N.B.’s Application for Deferral of Removal under the Convention Against Torture.

REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS AVOIDED Matter of R.R.B. (2019)

R.R.B. is a native and citizen of Mexico who had been admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident when she was a minor. After being convicted of battery with substantial bodily harm in violation of Nevada law decades thereafter, she was sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the Nevada Department of Corrections. As R.R.B. was nearing the end of her term of imprisonment, she learned that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) had placed a detainer on her (colloquially referred to as an “ICE hold”) and intended to initiate removal proceedings upon her release from criminal custody. When this information was conveyed to R.R.B.’s family, they contacted Alex with this distressing news. Upon examining the case and learning all relevant facts, Alex determined that R.R.B. had automatically derived United States citizenship pursuant to section 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. He immediately prepared an Application for Certificate of Citizenship (“Form N-600”) and filed it with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Upon receiving the receipt from USCIS, Alex immediately prepared correspondence to the local ICE office in Las Vegas that included the Form N-600 pending with USCIS, all relevant supporting documentation to support R.R.B.’s claim to citizenship, and legal argument explaining how R.R.B. had met all of the elements under section 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The local ICE office reviewed all of the supporting documents and lifted the detainer that it had placed on R.R.B. Removal proceedings were never initiated, and R.R.B. has finally received her Certificate of Citizenship.

REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS CANCELLED AND PERMANENT RESIDENCE CONFERRED Matter of N.G.F. (2019)

N.G.F. is a native and citizen of Mexico who had entered the United States more than a decade ago without being inspected and admitted. He was arrested by the Department of Homeland Security as a result of active enforcement efforts in the region where he lived. On his behalf, Alex prepared, filed, and litigated to completion an Application for Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status for Certain Nonpermanent Residents (“Form EOIR-42B”), arguing that N.G.F. (1) had the requisite 10 years of continuous physical presence, (2) that he had been a person of good moral character during this timeframe, and (3) that his removal from the United States would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen daughter. Satisfied with the evidence presented, the presiding immigration judge found that N.G.F. had satisfied all the statutory requirements, and he further concluded that N.G.F. merited relief in the exercise of discretion. N.G.F’s removal proceedings were cancelled, and he was granted lawful permanent residence.

CONDITIONS ON RESIDENCE REMOVED Matter of M.C. (2018)

M.C. had his individual hearing postponed to 2019 because the judge had a scheduling conflict. Alex filed a motion to terminate along with a Pre-Hearing brief in Support of Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence (“Form I-751”), where Alex argued this case did not need an individual hearing. The judge agreed, granted the Form I-751, and terminated removal proceedings.

REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS TERMINATED Matter of A.A. (2018)

A.A. was charged as an alien deportable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony drug offense. Alex argued that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) did not meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that A.A. is deportable under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“the Act”) for two reasons:

First, that DHS cannot even prove that A.A. is an “alien” subject to the provisions of section 237 of the Act because he automatically acquired United States citizenship pursuant to section 320 of the Act.

Second, that DHS cannot prove by clear and convincing evidence that A.A.’s conviction for possession of controlled substance with intent to sell in violation of section 453.337 of the Nevada Revised Statutes is a conviction for an “aggravated felony” as that term is defined in section 101(a)(43)(B) of the Act because section 453.337 of the Nevada Revised Statutes is an overbroad and indivisible statute that proscribes offenses outside the scope of section 101(a)(43)(B) of the Act.

The immigration judge presiding over the case (arguably, the harshest and most conservative of the four judges here at the Las Vegas Immigration Court) issued a decision dismissing the aggravated felony drug charge and terminating proceedings.

A.A. no longer faces deportation.

REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS TERMINATED Matter of R.P. (2018)

R.P was facing deportation for convictions of attempt to commit possession of credit or debit Card without cardholder’s consent in violation of sections 193.330, 205.690 of the Nevada Revised Statutes as well as attempt forgery in violation of sections 193.330, 205.090, 205.110. Alex argued that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) was unable to prove by clear and convincing evidence that R.P. is deportable under either section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) or section 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Specifically, he argued that the attempt credit card charge was not an aggravated felony and that the attempt forgery charge was not a crime of moral turpitude. The judge granted the motion, and the client’s lawful permanent residence was saved.

If you or a loved one is facing removal proceedings, it’s crucial to seek expert legal counsel to protect your rights and avoid deportation. At the Law Office of Alexander R. Vail, we specialize in removal defense strategies and have helped countless individuals secure favorable outcomes in their cases. Whether you're seeking a waiver, facing deportation charges, or working to adjust your immigration status, we are here to guide you through the process. Call us today at (725) 221-5998 or contact us online to schedule a consultation and discuss how we can help you fight for your future in the United States.