Skip Navigation

Recent Cases

You should not navigate the immigration process alone. Come see us, and we’ll tell you how to proceed. You can count on us for an honest answer and plan.

Naturalization

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED Song v. Kent, et. al., No. 2:18-cv-00919-GMN-VCF (D. Nev. 2020)

Ms. Song is a native and citizen of China who had entered the United States as a K-2 nonimmigrant. Ms. Song filed an adjustment application shortly after her parent (the K-1 nonimmigrant) married the petitioning U.S. citizen fiancé. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), however, denied the adjustment application because Ms. Song had turned twenty-one years of age before the agency could adjudicate the application. Notably, several years later, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that adjustment eligibility for an alien fiancé(e)’s derivative child is determined at the time of admission to the United States as a K-2 nonimmigrant. Matter of Le, 25 I&N Dec. 541 (BIA 2011). At the time of her admission as a K-2 nonimmigrant, Ms. Song was an unmarried twenty-year-old. Thus, the Board’s decision in Le essentially invalided the basis upon which USCIS had denied Ms. Song’s adjustment application years before. There was, however, no reason for Ms. Song to move to reopen this previously filed adjustment application since she had already obtained lawful permanent residence on the basis of a second adjustment application filed just a couple of years after the denial of the first adjustment application. This second adjustment application was premised on Ms. Song’s own marriage to a U.S. citizen.

Several years later, Ms. Song applied for naturalization. USCIS denied her application upon concluding that she had been granted permanent residence in error in contravention of section 245(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. After exhausting administrative remedies, Alex sought review in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under section 310(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Alex candidly conceded that Ms. Song was inappropriately granted adjustment on the basis of her own marriage to a U.S. citizen but nonetheless argued that there was a remedy grounded in equity that could rectify the whole situation.

First, Alex argued that, in light of the framework laid out by the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union v. NLRB, 466 F.2d 380, 390 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (known as the “Retail factors”), the Board’s decision in Le should be applied retroactively.  This would then mean that Ms. Song was still eligible to adjust her status pursuant to her first application for adjustment. To be sure, USCIS’s finding of ineligibility this first time had cut off the remaining lines of inquiry—namely, whether Ms. Song was otherwise admissible to the United States and whether she merited a favorable exercise of discretion. But, Alex argued, this is where the second adjustment application came into play.

The fact that Ms. Song’s second adjustment application was ultimately granted reflected that Ms. Song was otherwise admissible and merited a favorable exercise of discretion. Alex therefore reasoned that there was no reason why these findings could not be applied retroactively to Ms. Song’s first adjustment application. Application of the Board’s decision in Le coupled with retroactive application of USCIS’s findings that Ms. Song was otherwise statutorily eligible for adjustment and merited a favorable exercise of discretion would effectively accord Ms. Song lawful permanent resident status as of the date of adjudication of the first adjustment application. This, in turn, would remove the only basis upon which USCIS denied her application for naturalization. The U.S. District Court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of Ms. Song.

CITIZENSHIP GRANTED Matter of V.A.V. (2020)
V.A.V., a native and citizen of the Mexico who had been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for more than three decades, sought the aid of Alex to file an Application for Naturalization (“Form N-400”). He was concerned, however, because he had sustained multiple convictions for driving under the influence in various jurisdictions as well as a battery conviction in violation of Nevada law. Alex prepared the Form N-400 filing, taking special efforts to explain in a memorandum of law why V.A.V.’s convictions did not preclude him from establishing good moral character. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) agreed, approved V.A.V. for naturalization, and he has been sworn in as a United States citizen.

CITIZENSHIP GRANTED Matter of M.S. (2020)
M.S., a native and citizen of Japan who had been admitted as a lawful permanent resident of the United States, sought the aid of Alex to file an Application for Naturalization (“Form N-400”). Alex prepared the Form N-400 filing, prepared M.S. for his interview, and attended the interview with D.S. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) approved him for naturalization, and he has been sworn in as a United States citizen.

CITIZENSHIP GRANTED Matter of V.A.V. (2020)
V.A.V., a native and citizen of the Mexico who had been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for more than three decades, sought the aid of Alex to file an Application for Naturalization (“Form N-400”). He was concerned, however, because he had sustained multiple convictions for driving under the influence in various jurisdictions as well as a battery conviction in violation of Nevada law. Alex prepared the Form N-400 filing, taking special efforts to explain in a memorandum of law why V.A.V.’s convictions did not preclude him from establishing good moral character. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) agreed, approved V.A.V. for naturalization, and he has been sworn in as a United States citizen.

CITIZENSHIP GRANTED Matter of C.R. (2019)
C.R. is a native of Mexico who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. Married to a U.S. citizen, she wanted to apply for naturalization pursuant to section 319(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Alex helped C.R. ensure that the case was properly documented and that it included all the additional evidence (that is typically not needed otherwise) required by section 319(a) and the corresponding federal regulations. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) ultimately approved C.R. for naturalization, and she has been sworn in as a United States citizen. 

CITIZENSHIP GRANTED Matter of M.B.O. (2019)
M.B.O. is a native of Mexico who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. He sought the help of Alex to file an Application for Naturalization (“Form N-400”). He had previously been convicted of domestic violence in violation of Arizona law and was concerned that this conviction would result in the denial of his Form N-400. Alex explained how M.B.O.’s conviction did not preclude him from establishing good moral character. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) agreed, approved M.B.O. for naturalization, and he has been sworn in as a United States citizen. 

CITIZENSHIP GRANTED Matter of S.M.T. (2019)
S.M.T. is a native of Peru who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. He sought the help of Alex to file an Application for Naturalization (“Form N-400”). He had previously been convicted of driving under the influence in violation of Nevada law and was concerned of the impact this conviction might have on his Form N-400. Alex explained how S.M.T.’s conviction did not preclude him from establishing good moral character. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) agreed, approved S.M.T. for naturalization, and he has been sworn in as a United States citizen.

CITIZENSHIP GRANTED Matter of F.O. (2019)
F.O., is a native and citizen of El Salvador who after being a lawful permanent resident for more than 20 years sought the aid of Alex to file an Application for Naturalization (“Form N-400”). He had previously been convicted of driving under the influence in violation of Georgia law and was concerned of the impact this conviction might have on his Form N-400. He was also concerned about his ability to satisfy the English language requirement. Alex explained that he would be exempt from the English language requirement because he was over 50 years of age and had been a permanent resident for over 20 years. Alex further explained how F.O’s conviction did not preclude him from establishing good moral character. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) agreed, approved F.O. for naturalization, and he has been sworn in as a United States citizen.

CITIZENSHIP GRANTED Matter of D.S. (2019)
D.S., a native and citizen of the Philippines who had been admitted as a lawful permanent resident of the United States. He sought the aid of Alex to file an Application for Naturalization (“Form N-400”). Alex prepared the Form N-400 filing, prepared D.S. for her interview, and attended the interview with D.S. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). She was approved for naturalization and has been sworn in as a United States citizen.

CITIZENSHIP GRANTED Matter of E.C.A. (2019)
E.C.A., a native and citizen of the Philippines who had been admitted as a lawful permanent resident of the United States, sought the aid of Alex to file an Application for Naturalization (“Form N-400”). Alex prepared the Form N-400 filing, prepared E.C.A. for his interview, and attended the interview with E.C.A. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) approved him for naturalization, and he has been sworn in as a United States citizen.

CITIZENSHIP GRANTED Matter of E.M.D.M. (2019)
E.M.D.M., a native and citizen of the Mexico who had been admitted as a lawful permanent resident of the United States, sought the aid of Alex to file an Application for Naturalization (“Form N-400”). She had recently been convicted of driving under the influence in violation of Arizona law and was concerned that this conviction would result in the denial of her Form N-400. Alex prepared the Form N-400 filing, taking special efforts to explain in a memorandum of law why E.M.D.M.’s conviction did not preclude her from establishing good moral character. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) agreed, approved E.M.D.M. for naturalization, and she has been sworn in as a United States citizen.

CITIZENSHIP GRANTED Matter of Y.K. (2019)
Y.K., a native and citizen of Russia who had been admitted as a lawful permanent resident of the United States several decades ago, sought the aid of Alex to file an Application for Naturalization (“Form N-400”). Y.K. had been concerned about filing the Form N-400 because during the relevant five-year period, she had taken a seven-month trip abroad to Russia to care for her ailing mother. Alex prepared the Form N-400 filing, which included a detailed memorandum of law in which Alex argued that if the agency took into account all of the factors set out in 8 C.F.R. § 316.5(c)—the regulation that sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors for adjudicators to consider when assessing whether a lawful permanent resident’s absence in excess of six months constitutes a disruption in continuous residence—it should find that Y.K.’s absence in excess of six months did not disrupt her “continuous residence” in the United States. Upon review of the filing, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) agreed with the arguments advanced and found that Y.K.’s trip of over seven months did not disrupt her “continuous residence.” It further found that Y.K had otherwise established her eligibility for naturalization and subsequently approved her for naturalization. Y.K. has been sworn in as a United States citizen.

CITIZENSHIP GRANTED Matter of N.S. (2019)
N.S., a native and citizen of Turkey who had been admitted as a lawful permanent resident of the United States a few years back, sought the aid of Alex to file an Application for Naturalization (“Form N-400”). Alex prepared the Form N-400 filing, prepared N.S. for her interview, and attended the interview with N.S. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) approved her for naturalization, and she has been sworn in as a United States citizen.

CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP CONFERRED Matter of J.C. (2019)
J.C. is a native and citizen of Germany who had been admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident of the United States back in 1985. More than 30 years later, she sought the advice of Alex regarding the steps that needed to be taken to acquire naturalization. After discussing all relevant facts surrounding J.C.’s situation, Alex and J.C. agreed to pursue an Application for Certificate of Citizenship (“Form N-600”). Alex prepared a detailed memorandum of law in which he presented to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services all of the relevant facts and why J.C., under the law as it existed prior to the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, would have automatically derived United States citizenship. The agency agreed and, after her oath ceremony, J.C. was given her Certificate of Citizenship.

CITIZENSHIP GRANTED Matter of C.R. (2019)
C.R. is a native and citizen of Mexico who had been admitted as a lawful permanent resident of the United States several decades ago. He had been reluctant to file an Application for Naturalization (“Form N-400”) because of certain criminal convictions that he had in the past. With the guidance of Alex, he ultimately decided to apply. Accepting that he was, in fact, a person of good moral character (and not judging him by mistakes made long ago), USCIS approved him for naturalization, and C.R. sworn in as a United States citizen. 

CITIZENSHIP GRANTED Matter of P.L. (2018)
P.L. is a native and citizen of Vietnam who sought naturalization. He had previously applied on his own and was denied. With the help of Alex, he again applied and was approved.

CITIZENSHIP GRANTED Matter of A.G. (2018)
A.G. is a native and citizen of Mexico who applied for naturalization. Alex guided her through the process and with his help, her application for naturalization was approved

CITIZENSHIP GRANTED Matter of M.P. (2018) Alex walked the client through the naturalization process. She was recommended for approval by USCIS, and she was sworn in as a U.S. citizen on June 8, 2018.

CITIZENSHIP GRANTED Matter of F.A. (2018)
Alex walked the client through the naturalization process. F.A. was recommended for citizenship, and she recently took her oath of citizenship.

CITIZENSHIP GRANTED Matter of J.Z. (2018)
Alex walked the client through the naturalization process, including attending his naturalization interview with him. The client was recommended for citizenship at the end of the interview and recently took his oath of citizenship.

Family-Based Immigration

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of F.Z. (2020)
F.Z is a native and citizen of the Philippines who married a U.S. citizen. Her U.S. citizen spouse sought Alex’s help to bring F.Z. from the Philippines to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. Alex handled everything from the filing of the initial family petition all the way through consular processing. F.Z. was issued an immigrant visa and has been admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of R.L. (2020)
R.L. is a native and citizen of the Mexico who had been brought to the United States as a small child, never having been inspected or admitted to the country by an immigration official. He was, however, the derivative beneficiary of a Petition for Alien Relative (“Form I-130”) filed more than nineteen years ago by his uncle on behalf of his father. Recently married to a U.S. citizen, R.L reached out to Alex for assistance on what could be done to help R.L. obtain permanent resident status. Alex explained that as the beneficiary of a family-based petition filed before 30 April 2001 he would be able to seek adjustment under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Alex put together a complete adjustment packet, making sure to include all of the evidence needed to establish the additional elements that apply in the context of 245(i) adjustment. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted R.L.’s adjustment application, and R.L. is now a permanent resident of the United States. 

HARDSHIP WAIVER APPROVED AND IMMIGRANT VISA ISSUED Matter of M.Y.M. (2020)
M.Y.M. is a native and citizen of the Philippines who sought permanent residence on the basis of his marriage to a United States citizen. Because he was ineligible for adjustment of status, he had to complete consular processing. Prior to departing for his interview at the U.S. Embassy in Manila, he had applied for a provisional hardship waiver to cure his inadmissibility under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) approved the waiver. Believing the hardest part of his journey was over, M.Y.M. left the United States to attend his interview where he was devastated to learn that he was found inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which led to automatic revocation of the provisional waiver that had been previously approved. M.Y.M’s spouse, no less distraught after hearing this news, immediately sought Alex’s aid.  On M.Y.M’s behalf, Alex prepared an Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility (“Form I-601”) and explained in a detailed memorandum of law why the denial of a waiver of inadmissibility would result in extreme hardship to M.Y.M’s United States citizen spouse. Satisfied with the evidence presented and the arguments made on his behalf, USCIS granted M.YM.’s Form I-601 and the U.S. Embassy in Manila subsequently issued M.Y.M an immigrant visa. M.Y.M. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States. 

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of B.D.K. (2020)
B.D.K. is a native and citizen of Ethiopia who was adopted by U.S. citizens. Her parents sought Alex’s help to bring B.D.K. from Ethiopia to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. Alex handled everything from the filing of the initial family petition all the way through consular processing. B.D.K. was issued an immigrant visa and has been admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident.

ABANDONED FORMS I-130 REOPENED BY USCIS Matter of F.Y. (2020)
F.Y., a citizen of the United States, had filed a Petition for Alien Relative (“Form I-130”) for each of her four children in the Philippines. Since the filing, she had moved to a new address and submitted the proper correspondence to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to update her address on each of the four cases. The agency, however, failed to update its records for two of the four cases. The upshot was that F.Y. did not receive certain correspondence from USCIS and when USCIS failed to receive the responsive materials requested, it deemed the Forms I-130 abandoned. F.Y. sought Alex’s assistance several years after the fact. Alex moved to reopen pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(iii)(C). USCIS ultimately reopened the Forms I-130 in those two cases in which it had failed to properly update F.Y.’s address.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of T.D.D. (2020)
T.D.D., a native and citizen of Canada, had lawfully entered the United States but had overstayed by several years. In the United States, T.D.D. married a United States citizen, and both she and her husband sought Alex’s help to adjust T.D.D.’s status to that of a lawful permanent resident. T.D.D. was concerned about a run-in with lawful enforcement she had while residing in New York. After securing all relevant documentation, it was confirmed that T.D.D. was not convicted of any offense and therefore not statutorily ineligible for adjustment. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted T.D.D.’s adjustment application under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. T.D.D. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of S.D. (2020)
S.D., a native and citizen of Costa Rica, had lawfully entered the United States with a B2 nonimmigrant visa, and she sought Alex’s help to adjust her status to that of a lawful permanent resident on the basis of her marriage to a United States citizen. S.D. and her husband were concerned because of their lack of documents to establish the “bona fides” of their marriage. With the evidence provided, Alex put together as good of an adjustment packet as possible and also prepared S.D. and her husband for the possibility that they would be interviewed separately by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Sure enough, S.D. and her husband were interrogated separately by the immigration officer at their adjustment interview. Having been thoroughly prepared by Alex, however, S.D. and her husband were at ease and answered all questions to the satisfaction of the interviewing officer. USCIS granted S.D.’s adjustment application under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. S.D. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of K.Q. (2020)
K.Q., a native and citizen of the United Kingdom, had lawfully entered the United States under the Visa Waiver Program but had overstayed by several years. In the United States, K.Q. married a United States citizen, and both he and his wife sought Alex’s help to adjust K.Q.’s status to that of a lawful permanent resident. K.Q. had expressed concerns regarding the public charge ground of inadmissibility in light of the fact that certain members of his household had obtained public benefits in the past. After analyzing all relevant circumstances and securing all necessary evidence, Alex was able to prepare the filing to ensure U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) would not conclude that K.Q. was likely to become a public charge under section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. USCIS ultimately granted K.Q.’s adjustment application under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. K.Q. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

HARDSHIP WAIVER APPROVED AND LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of H.L. (2020)
H.L. is a native and citizen of Vietnam who had been found inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act because of a misunderstanding that had been construed as a “material misrepresentation” by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). After being informed that she could file an Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility (“Form I-601”), she sought Alex’s help. Alex prepared the filing and explained in a detailed memorandum of law why the denial of a waiver of inadmissibility would result in extreme hardship to her United States citizen spouse. Satisfied with the evidence presented and the arguments made on her behalf, USCIS granted H.L.’s Form I-601 and subsequently granted her adjustment of status application.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of A.V.H (2020)
A.V.H. is a native and citizen of the Netherlands who had entered the United States with an E2 nonimmigrant visa. He was the beneficiary of an approved Petition for Alien Relative (“Form I-130”) filed by his mother on his behalf. When A.V.H. met with Alex, he wanted to know what the next steps would be. After carefully reviewing the relevant facts, Alex explained that A.V.H. would actually be able to adjust status in the United States pursuant to section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act since the priority date on the Form I-130 was current and none of the bars to adjustment set out in section 245(c) of the Act were applicable. Accordingly, Alex helped A.V.H. file a complete adjustment filing with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). The agency granted the adjustment application, and A.V.H. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of P.S. (2020)
P.S., a native and citizen of Thailand, had entered the United States with a B2 nonimmigrant visa (commonly known as a “tourist visa”). During her stay here in the United States, P.S. fell in love with a United States citizen. Both P.S. and her husband sought Alex’s help to adjust P.S.’s status to that of a lawful permanent resident. Alex helped prepare an adjustment filing that properly documented the bona fides of P.S.’s relationship with her husband and that contained the evidence needed to meet P.S.’s burden of establishing admissibility to the United States. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted P.S.’s adjustment application under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. P.S. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

CONDITIONS ON LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS REMOVED Matter of E.M.C (2019)
E.M.C. is a native and citizen of El Salvador who had adjusted her status to that of a lawful permanent resident on the basis of her marriage with a U.S. citizen. However, because the marriage was less than two years old at the time her status was adjusted, her permanent resident status was conferred on a “conditional” basis. Accordingly, within the 90-day period prior to when her status expired, E.M.C. sought Alex’s assistance in preparing and filing the Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence (“Form I-751”). Alex helped ensure that the supporting evidence was sufficient to meet E.M.C.’s burden of proving that she entered into marriage with her U.S. citizen husband in good faith. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) agreed and granted E.M.C.’s Form I-751, removing the conditions on her permanent resident status.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of Q.D. (2019)
Q.D. is a native and citizen of Vietnam who had entered the United States several years ago with an F1 nonimmigrant visa (i.e., a “student visa”). She sought the aid of Alex after she married her second husband because she wanted to adjust her status on the basis of her marriage to a U.S. citizen. Q.D. was concerned, however, because she had unsuccessfully attempted to adjust on the basis of her first marriage. At that time, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) had pressured her first husband to withdraw the Petition for Alien Relative (“Form I-130”) because a number of issues had arisen during the interview that led the agency to suspect marriage fraud. Because the Form I-130 had been withdrawn, the Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (“Form I-485”) was denied. Q.D. was therefore concerned that this episode that had happened a few years back would adversely impact any future filed adjustment application. Alex carefully reviewed the case first to assess whether the “marriage fraud bar” under section 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act applied. Having discovered that the agency had not affirmatively made any finding of marriage fraud in respect to the first marriage, Alex explained to Q.D. that while there was no bar that automatically applied, the matter of Q.D.’s first marriage involved thorny issues that needed to be addressed because it would almost surely be a subject of discussion at the interview on the second adjustment filing. Sure enough it was, but Q.D. was sufficiently prepared to explain to the agency under oath the circumstances surrounding her first marriage and how that marriage too had been bona fide but had fallen apart for other reasons. USCIS was satisfied with Q.D.’s answers and, content with the evidence included in the second adjustment filing, it granted Q.D.’s Form I-485. Q.D. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of J.T.P. (2019)
J.T.P. is a native and citizen of Thailand who had recently entered the United States with a B2 nonimmigrant visa (i.e., a “tourist visa”). Not too long after his arrival, J.T.P. fell in love with A.W., a United States citizen. A.W. knew in just a few months that J.T.P. is the man he wanted to spend the rest of his life with. Accordingly, A.W. proposed to J.T.P. and they wed shortly thereafter. They then sought Alex’s help in preparing an adjustment filing. J.T.P., however, was concerned because of how quickly he and A.W. had married after the former’s entry as a tourist. Alex helped prepare an adjustment of status application that documented the bona fides of J.T.P.’s marriage with his United States citizen husband and that served to dispel any notion that J.T.P. had “immigrant intent” either when he initially secured his B2 tourist visa or when he most recently entered the United States with that visa. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted J.T.P.’s adjustment application under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. J.T.P. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of A.W. (2019)
A.W., a native and citizen of New Zealand, had entered the United States with an F1 nonimmigrant visa. During the course of her studies, A.W. fell in love with a United States citizen. Both A.W. and her husband sought Alex’s help to adjust A.W.’s status to that of a lawful permanent resident. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted A.W.’s adjustment application under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. A.W. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of B.T. (2019)
B.T. is a native and citizen of Brazil who entered the United States with a K1 nonimmigrant visa (colloquially referred to as the “fiancé visa”). After marrying her petitioning fiancé, she and her husband sought the help of Alex to adjust B.T.’s status to that of a lawful permanent resident. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted B.T.’s adjustment application under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. B.T. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of R.R.L. (2019)
R.R.L. is a native and citizen of Mexico who had entered the United States with an H1A work visa. While in the United States, he fell in love with and married a United States citizen. He subsequently sought the help of Alex to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) ultimately granted R.R.L.’s adjustment application under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. R.R.L. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of S.V.G. (2019)
S.V.G. is a native and citizen of Mexico who had entered the United States with a B2 tourist visa as a young child. She was, however, “waved through” by the immigration official and thus never received a stamp in her passport or any other official documentation to prove that she lawfully entered the United States. Married to a United States citizen, she sought Alex’s help to apply for adjustment of status with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Alex carefully prepared the case and included in the adjustment filing a detailed memorandum of law that explained how the evidence provided was sufficient to meet S.V.G.’s burden of proving that she presented herself to immigration authorities in a “procedurally regular manner” and was thus “inspected and admitted” to the United States. See Matter of Quilantan, 25 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 2010). Upon review of the evidence furnished and the arguments presented, USCIS granted S.V.G.’s adjustment application under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. S.V.G. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of S.S. (2019)
S.S. is a native and citizen of Thailand who had recently entered the United States with a B2 tourist visa. Not too long after his arrival, S.S.’s long-term United States citizen boyfriend spontaneously proposed to him. They subsequently decided that they would marry during S.S.’s authorized period of stay in the United States. After the marriage, S.S. and his husband decided that they wanted to build their lives together here in the United States and thus decided that it would be best to secure permanent resident status for S.S. However, S.S. was concerned because of how quickly they married after his entry as a tourist. Alex helped prepare an adjustment of status application that documented the bona fides of S.S.’s marriage with his United States citizen husband and that served to dispel any notion that S.S. had “immigrant intent” either when he initially secured his B2 tourist visa or when he most recently entered the United States with that visa. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted S.S.’s adjustment application under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. S.S. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

HARDSHIP WAIVER APPROVED AND LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of N.O.C. (2019)
N.O.C. is a native and citizen of Mexico who last entered the United States with a B2 tourist visa over a decade ago. On the basis of her marriage to a United States citizen, N.O.C. sought to adjust her status to that of a lawful permanent resident. However, after her initial interview, she was found inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by virtue of the fact that she had previously entered the United States with her B2 visa, overstayed beyond the period of authorized stay, and had then reentered the United States again as a tourist before she had spent 10 years outside of the country. On her behalf, Alex prepared an Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility (“Form I-601”) and explained in a detailed memorandum of law why the denial of a waiver of this ground of inadmissibility would result in extreme hardship to her United States citizen spouse. Satisfied with the evidence presented and the arguments made on her behalf, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted N.O.C.’s Form I-601 and subsequently granted N.O.C.’s Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (“Form I-485”). N.O.C. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of N.T.V. (2019)
N.T.V. is a native and citizen of Brazil who had entered the United States with a B2 tourist visa several years ago and had overstayed beyond the period of authorized stay. Married to a United States citizen, she sought to fix her immigration status but was concerned because of the visa overstay. Alex explained to her that as the “immediate relative” of a United States citizen (as that term is defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act), she would still be eligible to adjust her status. Accordingly, on her behalf, Alex filed an adjustment of status application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Alex also prepared both N.T.V. and her husband for the adjustment interview and accompanied them to this interview. USCIS granted N.T.V.’s adjustment application under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. N.T.V. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of R.M.M. (2019)
R.M.M. is a native and citizen of Mexico who had been granted a U visa. After residing continuously in the United States for three years, she sought Alex’s assistance in the preparation and filing of an adjustment of status application. After securing all of the necessary supporting documentation—which included evidence that R.M.M. had not “unreasonably refused” to provide assistance to the Clark County District Attorney’s Office in the prosecution of the qualifying criminal activity that resulted in her U nonimmigrant status—Alex prepared a comprehensive filing that explained why R.M.M. is statutorily eligible to adjust status under section 245(m) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and why she merited adjustment in the exercise of discretion. USCIS granted R.M.M.’s adjustment application under section 245(m), and R.M.M. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of M.M.R. (2019)
M.M.R. is a native and citizen of Canada who sought to immigrate to the United States as the spouse of a U.S. citizen. Having both lived in Canada for decades, M.M.R. and her husband sought Alex’s help in the process to ensure no hiccups. From the filing of the initial family petition and all the way through consular processing, Alex helped make the process as smooth as possible for M.M.R. and her husband. After her interview at the consulate, M.M.R. was issued an immigrant visa and has recently immigrated to the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of J.A. (2019)
J.A. is a native and citizen of Mexico who had initially entered the United States decades ago without being inspected and admitted. Her son, who was born in the United States, serves in the United States armed forces. With the help of Alex, she first applied for parole-in-place with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Las Vegas Application Support Center. After she was granted parole, Alex helped her apply for adjustment of status. Less than five months after filing her adjustment application, J.A. was approved for permanent residence.

PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of M.D.G. (2019)
M.D.G., a native and citizen of the Philippines, was engaged to a United States citizen and sought to immigrate to the United States. She entered the United States on a K-1 visa and adjusted her status to that of a lawful permanent resident with the help of Alex.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of A.M. (2018)
A.M., a citizen and national of Russia, had been denied entry to the United States on her tourist visa. Married to a U.S. citizen, she wanted to be able to live with her husband in the United States. Alex helped A.M. and her husband through the consular processing and was even able to get the case expedited. A.M. entered the United States as a lawful permanent residence within less than eight months after starting the process with Alex.

PAROLE-IN-PLACE GRANTED In re. J.A. (2018)
A native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States years ago without being inspected and admitted. Alex applied for parole-in-place with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Application Support Center in Las Vegas, Nevada. After considering the equities in her case, USCIS granted her application for parole-in-place, effectively making her eligible for adjustment of status to become a legal permanent resident.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of Y.C. (2018)
Alex helped the client, a Chinese citizen in the U.S. on an B1/B2 visitor visa — through the process to become a legal permanent resident.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of E.N. (2018)
Alex helped E.N., a Nigerian in the U.S. on an F-1 student visa, through the process to become a legal permanent resident.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of R.G. (2018)
The client had a visa and wished to adjust status to a legal permanent resident on the basis of his marriage with a U.S. citizen. With the help of Alex, he obtained his permanent residence.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of A.H. (2017)
Alex helped the client adjust status to legal permanent resident on the basis of her marriage to a U.S. citizen.

Removal Defense

ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION GRANTED AND PERMANENT RESIDENCE CONFERRED Matter of V.H. (2020)
V.H. is a native and citizen of Mexico who had been arrested for battery constituting domestic violence in violation of Nevada law and subsequently placed in removal proceedings by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). As the father of a U.S. citizen, V.H. was able to obtain “immediate relative” status by the filing of a Petition for Alien Relative (“Form I-130”) with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), which the agency subsequently approved. After approval of the Form I-130, Alex filed on V.H.’s behalf a complete adjustment application at the Las Vegas Immigration Court. Satisfied with the evidence presented in the case, the presiding immigration judge granted V.H.’s adjustment application. V.H. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States

DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS REOPENED AND TERMINATED; ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION GRANTED Matter of L.B.H. (2020)
L.B.H is a native and citizen of El Salvador who had been ordered deported in absentia back in 1997. This came to light after he had affirmatively sought adjustment with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Alex prepared and filed a Motion to Rescind an in Absentia Order and Reopen Deportation Proceedings, arguing lack of notice of the hearing that L.B.H. failed to attend in 1997, which resulted in the deportation order. The immigration judge reopened L.B.H.’s deportation proceedings and subsequently agreed to termination of the proceedings after Alex presented proof of the adjustment application that had been administratively closed by USCIS on account of the previous outstanding deportation order of deportation. After the proceedings were terminated, Alex moved to reopen the administratively closed adjustment application. USCIS reopened the application and granted it. L.B.H. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

BOND GRANTED Matter of F.C. (2020)
F.C. is a native and citizen of Mexico who had been arrested for lewdness with a minor under sixteen years of age in violation of Nevada law. Several months after he was initially charged, the Department of Homeland Security decided to take F.C. into its custody and refused to release him on a bond. Alex filed a motion seeking a custody redetermination hearing at the Las Vegas Immigration Court on his behalf, arguing that F.C. did not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight. Satisfied with the evidence presented, the presiding immigration judge set a bond. F.C. was released from immigration custody after posting this bond.

BOND GRANTED Matter of P.J.R. (2020)
P.J.R. is a native and citizen of Guatemala who had been arrested for battery on a protected person in violation of Nevada law. After he was released on his own recognizance in the pending criminal case, he was transferred to immigration custody where the Department of Homeland Security refused to release P.J.R. on a bond. Alex filed a motion seeking a custody redetermination hearing with the Las Vegas Immigration Court on his behalf, arguing that P.J.R. did not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight. Satisfied with the evidence presented, the presiding immigration judge set a bond. P.J.R. was released from immigration custody after posting this bond.

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.

BOND GRANTED Matter of R.A.V (2019)
R.A.V. is a native and citizen of Mexico who had been convicted of disorderly conduct and harassment in violation of New York law. Shortly after his latter conviction, the Department of Homeland Security arrested R.A.V. and refused to set a bond. Alex filed a motion seeking a custody redetermination hearing with the Varick Immigration Court on his behalf, arguing that R.A.V. did not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight. Satisfied with the evidence presented, the presiding immigration judge set a bond. R.A.V. was released from immigration custody after posting this bond.

APPLICATION FOR ASYLUM GRANTED Matter of W.D.V. (2019)
W.D.V. is a native and citizen of Venezuela who entered the United States, fleeing political persecution from his native country. He initially contracted the service of an “immigration consultant” to assist with the preparation an Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“Form I-589”). That consultant, however, failed to update U.S. Citizenship and Immigration and Services (“USCIS”) with W.D.V.’s new address despite assuring the latter that he would. Consequently, W.D.V. was placed in removal proceedings after failing to attend his asylum interview. While removal proceedings were pending, W.D.V.’s family, who had remained in Venezuela, eventually had to flee Venezuela because the situation had become untenable even for them. They sought asylum at the Mexican border, were paroled in, and also placed in removal proceedings. At this point, W.D.V. sought the assistance of Alex to assist with the complicated situation that he and his family found themselves in. Alex succeeded in consolidating the two cases and in litigating W.D.V.’s asylum application. Satisfied with the evidence presented in support of W.D.V’s application for relief, the presiding immigration judge granted W.D.V.’s asylum application (which applied to W.D.V’s family as well since they qualified as derivatives of W.D.V’s application).  

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.

BOND GRANTED Matter of C.L.F (2019)
C.L.F. is a native and citizen of Brazil who had been convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence in violation of Massachusetts law and was then arrested for battery constituting domestic violence in violation of Nevada law just a few months thereafter. After posting a bond to get out of criminal custody for the most recent arrest, C.L.F was transferred to immigration custody where the Department of Homeland Security refused to release C.L.F. Alex filed a motion seeking a custody redetermination hearing with the Las Vegas Immigration Court on his behalf, arguing that C.L.F. did not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight. Satisfied with the evidence presented, the presiding immigration judge set a bond. C.L.F. was released from immigration custody after posting this bond.

BOND GRANTED Matter of V.R.R. (2019)
V.R.R. is a native and citizen of Mexico who had been convicted of battery constituting domestic violence in violation of Nevada law and had been most recently arrested for driving under the influence in violation of Nevada law. After he was released from criminal custody, V.R.R. was transferred to immigration custody where the Department of Homeland Security refused to release V.R.R., finding him a danger to the community. Alex filed a motion seeking a custody redetermination hearing with the Las Vegas Immigration Court on his behalf, arguing that V.R.R. did not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight. Satisfied with the evidence presented, the presiding immigration judge set a bond. V.R.R. was released from immigration custody after posting this bond.

BOND GRANTED Matter of R.G.G.M (2019)
R.G.G.M is a native and citizen of Mexico who had been arrested for driving under the influence in violation of Nevada law. After he was released on his own recognizance in the pending criminal case, he was transferred to immigration custody where the Department of Homeland Security refused to release R.G.G.M. on a bond. Alex filed a motion seeking a custody redetermination hearing with the Las Vegas Immigration Court on his behalf, arguing that R.G.G.M did not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight. Satisfied with the evidence presented, the presiding immigration judge set a bond. R.G.G.M was released from immigration custody after posting this bond.

BOND GRANTED Matter of C.C.J. (2019)
C.C.J. is a native and citizen of Mexico who had been convicted of battery constituting domestic violence in violation of California law and had been arrested again for battery constituting domestic violence in violation of Nevada law. After he was released from criminal custody, C.C.J. was transferred to immigration custody where the Department of Homeland Security initially refused to release C.C.J., finding him a danger to the community. Alex filed a motion seeking a custody redetermination hearing with the Las Vegas Immigration Court on his behalf, arguing that C.C.J. did not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight. Prior to the bond hearing, Alex conferred with the attorney from the Department of Homeland Security handling the case and a bond setting was agreed upon. The presiding immigration judge followed the stipulation of the parties and granted bond.

BOND GRANTED Matter of O.L.R. (2019)
O.L.R. is a native and citizen of Mexico who had been convicted for battery in violation of California law and had been most recently arrested for open and gross lewdness in violation of Nevada law. After he was released on his own recognizance in the pending criminal case, he was transferred to immigration custody where the Department of Homeland Security refused to release O.L.R. on a bond. Alex filed a motion seeking a custody redetermination hearing with the Las Vegas Immigration Court on his behalf, arguing that O.L.R. did not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight. Satisfied with the evidence presented, the presiding immigration judge set a bond. O.L.R. was released from immigration custody after posting this bond.

BOND GRANTED Matter of B.A.S.R. (2019)
B.A.S.R. is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States in 2004. He had been convicted twice for battery constituting domestic violence in violation of Nevada law a few years thereafter. He had most recently been arrested again for battery constituting domestic violence. After posting bail in the criminal case, he was taken into custody by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and removal proceedings were initiated. At the time of his initial bond hearing, the battery domestic violence charge had been pending. Finding B.A.S.R. a danger to the community on the basis of the two previous convictions for battery domestic violence and a pending charge for the same, the immigration judge initially denied bond. However, the pending charge was ultimately “denied” by the City of Las Vegas Attorney’s Office, which had decided to not prosecute B.A.S.R. With proof that the City Attorney’s Office had decided not to prosecute B.A.S.R., Alex filed a second custody redetermination hearing in which he argued that there had been a “material” change in circumstances under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e). After reviewing this proof along with the additional supporting evidence submitted with the bond request, the presiding immigration judge was satisfied that B.A.S.R. did not pose a danger to the community and set a bond in the case.

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.

ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION GRANTED AND PERMANENT RESIDENCE CONFERRED Matter of E.K. (2019)
E.K. is a native and citizen of Rwanda who had entered the United States on a B1 visa. He had timely applied for asylum, but his case had been referred by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to the Immigration Court for further proceedings. While these removal proceedings were ongoing, E.K. married a lawful permanent resident of the United States who had an Application for Naturalization (“Form N-400”) pending with USCIS. When E.K. met with Alex, Alex explained that his marriage to a lawful permanent resident, who was soon to become a United States citizen, provided him another possible form of relief from removal. Upon becoming counsel of record in the case, Alex immediately filed a Petition for Alien Relative (“Form I-130”) with USCIS on E.K.’s behalf (on the basis of E.K’s marriage to a lawful permanent resident). Alex then presented proof of the filing as well as proof of the interview that had been scheduled for the Form N-400 filed by E.K’s spouse. The presiding immigration judge agreed to continue the matter until a final decision was made by USCIS on the Form I-130. After the Form I-130 was approved, Alex filed an Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (“Form I-485”) with the Immigration Court. Satisfied with the evidence presented in support of the Form I-485, the presiding immigration judge found that E.K. had established statutory eligibility for adjustment of status, and he further concluded that E.K. merited relief in the exercise of discretion. Finally, after 6 years of being in removal proceedings, E.K. was granted lawful permanent residence.

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.

BOND GRANTED Matter of F.J.M. (2019)
F.J.M. is a native and citizen of Mexico who had been arrested for battery constituting domestic violence in violation of Nevada law. After bail was posted in the pending criminal case, he was transferred to immigration custody where the Department of Homeland Security refused to release F.J.M. on a bond. Alex filed a motion seeking a custody redetermination hearing with the Las Vegas Immigration Court on his behalf, arguing that F.J.M did not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight. Satisfied with the evidence presented, the presiding immigration judge set a bond. F.J.M was released from immigration custody after posting this bond. 

BOND GRANTED Matter of M.R. (2019)
M.R. is a native and citizen of Mexico who had been arrested for assault with a deadly weapon in violation of Nevada law and subsequently convicted of battery constituting domestic violence. After being released from criminal custody, she was transferred to immigration custody where the Department of Homeland Security refused to release M.R. on a bond. Alex filed a motion seeking a custody redetermination hearing with the Las Vegas Immigration Court on her behalf, arguing that M.R. did not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight. Satisfied with the evidence presented, the presiding immigration judge set a bond. M.R. was released from immigration custody after posting this bond.

BOND GRANTED Matter of E.A. (2019)
E.A. is a native and citizen of Israel who had been taken into criminal custody for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest in violation of Nevada law. After being released on his own recognizance from criminal custody, he was taken into immigration custody. Alex prepared a motion, seeking a custody redetermination hearing on his behalf. The immigration judge, satisfied with evidence presented in support of the motion, found that E.A. did not pose a danger to the community and set a bond. E.A. was released from immigration custody.

BOND GRANTED Matter of N.E.G. (2019)
N.E.G. is a native and citizen of Mexico who had been previously convicted of burglary and possession of a drug not to be introduced in interstate commerce in violation of Nevada law. He had most recently been arrested for conspiracy to commit battery and felony child abuse in violation of Nevada law. After posting bond and being released from criminal custody, he was taken into immigration custody. Alex prepared a motion, seeking a custody redetermination hearing on his behalf. The immigration judge, satisfied with evidence presented in support of the motion, found that N.E.G. did not pose a danger to the community and set a bond. N.E.G. was released from immigration custody.

BOND GRANTED Matter of N.V. (2019)
N.V. is a native and citizen of Mexico who had been wrongly arrested for battery domestic violence and felony child abuse in violation of Nevada law. After posting bail and being released from criminal custody, he was taken into immigration custody. Alex prepared a motion, seeking a custody redetermination hearing on his behalf. The immigration judge, satisfied with evidence presented in support of the motion, found that N.V. did not pose a danger to the community and set a bond. N.V. was released from immigration custody.

BOND GRANTED Matter of R.A.M. (2019)
R.A.M. is a native and citizen of Mexico who had been convicted of driving under the influence in violation of California law and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in violation of Nevada law. He was picked up by local law enforcement on an outstanding bench warrant. After serving a two-month term of imprisonment, he was transferred into immigration custody. Alex prepared a motion, seeking a custody redetermination hearing on his behalf. The immigration judge, satisfied with evidence presented in support of the motion, found that R.A.M. did not pose a danger to the community and set a bond. R.A.M. was released from immigration custody.

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

CONDITIONS ON RESIDENCE REMOVED Matter of M.C. (2018)
The client 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)
The client was charged as an alien deportable for being 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 the client is deportable under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“the Act”) for two reasons:

REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS TERMINATED Matter of R.P. (2018)
The client was facing deportation for convictions of Attempt to Commit Possession of Credit or Debit Card without Cardholder’s Consent in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 193.330, 205.690 as well as Attempt Forgery in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 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.

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

Second, that the DHS cannot prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent’s conviction for possession of controlled substance with intent to sell in violation of NRS 453.337 is a conviction for an aggravated felony as that term is defined in section 101(a)(43)(B) of the Act because NRS 453.337 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 issued a decision, dismissing the aggravated felony drug charge and terminating proceedings.

The client no longer faces deportation, and his lawful permanent residence status has been saved.

Criminal Defense

DUI DROPPED TO RECKLESS DRIVING Matter of C.L. (2019)
C.L. is a native and citizen of Mexico who had arrested for driving under the influence. Alex was able to negotiate a deal with the Clark County District Attorney’s Office whereby the DUI charge would be reduced to Reckless Driving if C.L. paid a fine, completed the Victim Impact Panel, DUI School, and the Coroner’s Program.  C.L. successfully completed all court-imposed requirements and so was only found guilty of the reduced charge of Reckless Driving.

BATTERY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE DISMISSED In re. I.R. (Las Vegas Justice Court, 2018)
A native and citizen of Mexico, was charged with battery domestic violence in violation of section 200.485.1 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. He maintained his innocence, Alex entered a not guilty plea, and set the case for trial. On the date of the trial, the Clark County District Attorney’s Office moved to dismiss the case. Case dismissed.

DUI CHARGE REDUCED TO RECKLESS DRIVING In re. R.S. (Las Vegas Justice Court, 2018)
A native and citizen of Germany, was charged with (1) driving under the influence in violation of section 484C.110 of the Nevada Revised Statutes and (2) failure to yield the right-of-way in
violation of section 484B.260 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. Alex was able to secure the following negotiation, which the Justice of the Peace presiding over the case followed: a no-contest plea to the charge of driving under the influence under a stay of adjudication; upon payment of (1) a fine of $685, (2) completion of DUI school, and (3) completion of the Victim Impact Panel, the case would be amended the reckless driving. Our client completed all requirements and the DUI charge was amended to reckless driving. The failure to yield the right of way charge was dropped altogether.

FELONY DRUG CHARGE DISMISSED State v. E.S. (Las Vegas Justice Court, 2017)
The client was charged with felony possession of methamphetamine. Alex negotiated a deal where the client paid a $500 fine and completed a drug evaluation in exchange for the charge being totally dismissed (meaning there is no drug conviction on Client’s record).

ATTENTIVE TO HIS CASES

“I was desperately searching for a lawyer that would help me with my husband’s case when I contacted Alexander Vail. I had spoken to a couple of lawyers prior that gave me no hope and told me to cross my hands and hope for the best. Alexander was the first attorney to tell me he could help me and gave me that hope that I was searching for. The results were amazing! He was able to get my husband out of jail on bail when no one believed it could be done. One thing I really like is how he is so attentive to his cases. Anything we need, and he is just one phone call or text away, and he returns our calls and texts almost immediately. I have found the experience to be everything we were looking for and more. I would recommend Alexander Vail to anyone who is looking for a lawyer who cares about his clients. We are truly grateful to have found such a great lawyer.” – Wife of Client

Copyright © 2020 · Powered by ThriveHive