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

CITIZENSHIP GRANTED Matter of M.T (2022)
M.T., a native and citizen of Vietnam, approached Alex as a lawful permanent resident seeking assistance with naturalization. She was concerned because of a charge for burglary in violation of California law for which she completed a diversion program at the Court’s order and ultimately had the criminal case dismissed for purposes of state law. Because what transpired would still likely be considered a “conviction” for purposes of immigration law pursuant to section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, she was concerned that applying for naturalization could have the adverse effect of getting her deported. Alex carefully reviewed her criminal record and determined that she was not subject to any of the grounds of deportability set out in section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. He also found that based on her circumstances, she was even still able to establish her eligibility for naturalization. Alex prepared and filed an Application for Naturalization (“Form N-400”) and made sure M.T. was well prepared for her interview. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted M.T.’s Form N-400, and M.T. is now a citizen of the United States.

CITIZENSHIP GRANTED Matter of J.O. (2022)
J.O., a native and citizen of Colombia, had maintained lawful permanent resident status for well over the time needed to apply for citizenship. But because of a previous criminal conviction, he was concerned that he would be ineligible for citizenship. Alex carefully reviewed all the attendant circumstances and advised J.O. that he would be safe to apply for naturalization. Alex prepared and filed an Application for Naturalization (“Form N-400”) and made sure J.O. was well prepared for his interview. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted J.O.’s Form N-400, and J.O. is now a citizen of the United States.

CITIZENSHIP GRANTED Matter of D.H. (2022)
D.H., a native and citizen of Canada, had maintained lawful permanent resident status for over two decades before he approached Alex for assistance with naturalization. Even though he knew his case posed no hurdles, D.H. wanted the peace of mind of having an attorney handle his case from start to finish. And it is that peace of mind that Alex was able to deliver. Alex prepared and filed an Application for Naturalization (“Form N-400”)—making sure to include all required supporting documentation—and then made sure D.H. was well-prepared for his interview. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted D.H.’s Form N-400, and D.H. is now a citizen of the United States. "D.H. is now a citizen of the United States.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Matter of S.E. (2022)
S.E. is a native and citizen of Mexico who was admitted for lawful permanent residence in the United States. He was concerned that a previous domestic violence arrest would result in the denial of his naturalization application. Alex reviewed the records provided by S.E. and assured him that, based on the facts of his case, he should not have any issues in naturalizing. Accordingly, Alex prepared a complete filing that was sufficient to satisfy U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) that S.E. was a person of good moral character and otherwise established all of the elements for naturalization set out in section 316(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. S.E. is now a citizen of the United States.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of L.C. (2022)
L.C. is a native and citizen of Vietnam and was admitted to lawful permanent residence in the United States by her marriage to a U.S. citizen. Having divorced shortly after obtaining residency, L.C. was concerned that the agency would make a problem of this when applying for naturalization. Alex examined the case and assured L.C. that he would have nothing to worry about. Subsequently, all the necessary documentation that was sufficient to convince the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") that L.C. had the necessary requirements for naturalization. L.C. is now a citizen of the United States.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of A.R. (2022)
A.R. is a native and citizen of Mexico who was admitted for lawful permanent residence in the United States. He requested Alex's help in preparing and filing an application for naturalization ("Form N-400"). Alex made sure to prepare the documentation in such a way that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") was satisfied that A.R. met all the elements set forth in section 316(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. A.R. is now a citizen of the United States.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of H.C. (2022)
H.C. is a native and citizen of Mexico who was admitted for lawful permanent residence in the United States. He worried that a previous domestic violence conviction in Arizona would not only make him ineligible for naturalization but even lead to deportation. Alex reviewed the records provided by H.C. and assured him that, based on the facts of his case, he would not be deported under section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and that, in fact, he was eligible for naturalization under section 316(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Alex prepared all the necessary paperwork and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") was convinced that H.C. was eligible for naturalization. H.C. is now a citizen of the United States.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of P.S. (2022)
P.S. was born in Brazil and is a Brazilian citizen. He had already been granted lawful permanent residence in the United States. As a resident, she was convicted of conspiracy to commit an act of forgery, which is a violation of the laws of the state of Nevada. She went to Alex because she had the concern of not being able to naturalize because of this conviction. Alex helped P.S. prepare her naturalization application, and focused on gathering the evidence necessary to prove that it included the element of "good moral conduct," as required by law. The USCIS government agency was satisfied that the application for naturalization complied with all the necessary elements under section 316(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and therefore approved the application.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of B.P. (2021)
B.P., a native and citizen of Hungary who had been admitted as a lawful permanent resident of the United States, had a petition to remove residency conditions ("Form I-751") that had already been pending for two years when she first met with Alex. Alex explained that since it had been more than three years since she obtained her permanent resident status based on her marriage to a U.S. citizen, she could actually already naturalize under section 319(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In addition, Alex explained that filing an Application for Naturalization ("Form N-400") while a Form I-751 is pending frequently has the effect of speeding up the process. One year after filing Form N-400, B.P. Form I-751 was approved without even an interview and after an interview for Form N-400, B.P.'s naturalization was also approved.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of A.F. (2021)
A.F., a native and citizen of the Philippines who had been admitted as a lawful permanent resident in the United States, applied for Alex's help in filing an application for naturalization ("Form N-400"). Due to certain complications around how she obtained her permanent residency status, she did not feel comfortable filing the application on her own. Alex prepared a package that helped establish A.F.'s eligibility for naturalization, including the element of "legal admission for permanent residency." Satisfied that A.F. had met the burden of establishing his eligibility for naturalization, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") approved A.F.'s naturalization.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of S.T.C. (2021)
S.T.C. is originally from and a citizen of Pakistan and had already been granted permanent residence in the United States of America. He wanted to become a citizen through the N-400 naturalization form, for which he went to Alex. He was concerned that his long journeys outside the United States, some of which had lasted nearly 180 days, could adversely affect his ability to become a U.S. citizen. Alex thoroughly reviewed S.T.C.'s travel history, taking note of each of the trips, and after doing so assured S.T.C. that he did meet as many of the requirements for continuous residence as well as physical presence. The government agency USCIS agreed and approved S.T.C.'s naturalization application.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of H.C. (2021)
H.C. is a native of and a citizen of Pakistan and had already been granted permanent residency in the United States of America. She wanted to become a citizen through the N-400 naturalization form, for which she went to Alex. Alex prepared the form N-400 process, and prior to the interview with the USCIS government agency, he helped prepare H.C. for it. H.C. was approved for naturalization And is already a citizen of the United States of America.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of K.C. (2021)
K.C. is a native of and a citizen of Pakistan and had already been granted permanent residency in the United States of America. He wanted to become a citizen through the N-400 naturalization form, for which he went to Alex. Alex prepared the form N-400 process, and prior to the interview with the USCIS government agency, he helped prepare K.C. for it. K.C. was approved for naturalization and is already a citizen of the United States of America.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of A.I.M. (2021)
A.I.M. is a native of and a citizen of Mexico and had already been granted permanent residence in the United States of America. He wanted to become a citizen through the N-400 naturalization form, for which he went to Alex. Alex prepared the form N-400 process, and prior to the interview with the USCIS government agency, he helped prepare A.I.M. for it. A.I.M. was approved for naturalization and is already a citizen of the United States of America.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of E.C. (2020)
E.C. is originally from El Salvador who had received lawful permanent residence in the United States of America. She had married a U.S. citizen, and wanted to apply for naturalization under section 319(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Alex helped E.C. document the case properly and to ensure that it includes all additional evidence (which is not normally necessary) under section 319(a) and applicable federal regulations. The uscis government agency agreed and approved E.C.'s naturalization. She has already taken the oath due to become a U.S. citizen.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED Song v. Kent, et. al., 2:18-cv-00919-GMN-VCF (D. Nev. 2020)                                Ms. Song was born in China and is a citizen of that country. You entered the United States on a K-2 nonimmigrant visa. Ms. Song filed a petition for legalization of her status just after her mother (a nonimmigrant on a K-1 visa) married her fiancé, who is a U.S. citizen. However, the USCIA government agency denied her application for legalization of immigration status because Ms. Song had reached the age of twenty-one before the agency processed her application. It is worth mentioning that a couple of years later, the Board of Immigration Appeals determined that the eligibility of a child of a non-resident fiancé is determined at the time of entry into the United States with the K-2 nonimmigrant visa. Question of Le, 25 I&N Dec. 541 (BIA 2011). When she entered the country on a K-2 nonimmigrant visa, Ms. Song was single and twenty years old. Thus, the decision the Board of Appeals made in the Le question essentially canceled the basis on which the USCIA government agency denied Ms. Song's request years earlier. There was, however, no reason to reopen the previously filed application, as she had already obtained lawful permanent residency thanks to a second application for legalization of status that was filed a couple of years after she was denied the first application to legalize her immigration status. This second request to legalize status is based on Ms. Song's marriage to a U.S. citizen.

Several years later, Ms. Song filed an application for naturalization. USCIS denied him application after concluding that he had been improperly granted lawful permanent residence in violation of section 245(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Having used all available administrative tools, Alex began the process in the United States District Court under section 310(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Alex openly admitted that Ms. Song had been granted legalization of her immigration status incorrectly based on her own marriage to a U.S. citizen, but nevertheless argued that there was an equitable solution that could resolve the situation.

First, Alex argued that, given the framework that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had established in the case of Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union v. NLRB, 466 F.2d 380, 390 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (known as the "Retail" factors), the Board of Appeals' decision on the Le issue should be applied retroactively. This would then mean that Ms. Song met the necessary requirements to legalize her status on her first application. It turns out that USCIS's finding that Ms. Song was not eligible had caused all other investigations to be canceled, namely whether Ms. Song was admissible to the United States of America and whether she deserved the exercise of discretionary power. But Alex argued that it is there that the second application for legalization of his status should be taken into account.

The fact that Ms. Song's second application for legalization of status was ultimately approved reflects the fact that Ms. Song had the requirements for entry into the country and deserved a favorable decision. Alex therefore indicated that there is no reason why these findings could not be applied retroactively to Ms Song's first application for legalisation of her status. Using the Board of Appeals' decision in Le's case along with the retroactive application of the USCIS government agency's findings that Ms. Song had met the requirements required by law and deserved a favorable decision would effectively mean that Ms. Song would be a lawful permanent resident as of the date of the decision of her first application for legalization of her status. This would eliminate the only basis usCIS had to deny his naturalization application. The U.S. District Court agreed and issued a summary judgment in favor of Ms. Song.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of M.S. (2020)
M.S. is a native of and a citizen of Japan and had already been granted permanent residence in the United States of America. He wanted to become a citizen through the N-400 naturalization form, for which he went to Alex. Alex prepared and filed Form N-400, and met with M.S. in order to prepare it for his interview with the USCIS government agency, which Alex also attended. The naturalization was approved and M.S. has already taken the oath to become a U.S. citizen.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of V.A.V. (2020)
V.A.V. is a native of and a citizen of Mexico and had already been granted permanent residence in the United States of America more than three years ago. He wanted to become a citizen through the N-400 naturalization form, for which he went to Alex. However, he is concerned that he had been convicted several times of driving under the influence of alcohol in various jurisdictions, as well as assault, in violation of the laws of the state of Nevada. Alex prepared form N-400 to file with the authorities, and in his memo explained in detail that V.A.V.'s convictions did not mean that he lacked a moral reputation. The government agency USCIS agreed and approved the naturalization of V.A.V. He has already taken the proper oath to become a U.S. citizen.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of C.R. (2019)
C.R. is a native of and a citizen of Mexico who had received lawful permanent residency in the United States of America. She had married a U.S. citizen, and wanted to apply for naturalization under section 319(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Alex assisted C.R. in properly documenting the case and made sure to include all additional evidence (which is not normally necessary) under section 319(a) and applicable federal regulations. The USCIS government agency agreed and approved C.R.'s naturalization. She has already taken the oath due to become a U.S. citizen.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of M.B.O. (2019)
M.B.O. is a native of and a citizen of Mexico who had received lawful permanent residency in the United States of America. She went to Alex for help with the naturalization application (Form N-400). He had previously been convicted of domestic violence in Arizona, violating the laws of this state. That's why he worried that he might be denied approval of the N-400 form. Alex explained to M.B.O. that his conviction did not mean he lacked a moral reputation. The USCIS government agency agreed and approved M.B.O.'s naturalization. He has already taken the proper oath to become a U.S. citizen.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of S.M.T. (2019)
S.M.T. is a native of and citizen of Peru who had received lawful permanent residence in the United States of America. She went to Alex for help with the naturalization application (Form N-400). He had previously been convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of the laws of the state of Nevada. He was concerned because he thought this conviction could have a negative effect on his N-400 form. Alex explained to S.M.T. that his conviction did not mean he lacked a moral reputation. The uscis government agency agreed and approved S.M.T.'s naturalization. He has already taken the proper oath to become a U.S. citizen.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of F.O. (2019)
F.O. is a native of and citizen of El Salvador who had been permanently resident in the country for more than 20 years. He wanted to become a citizen through the N-400 naturalization form, for which he went to Alex. He had previously been convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of the laws of the state of Georgia. He was concerned because he thought this conviction could have a negative effect on his N-400 form. In addition, he was concerned about the requirement of English proficiency as he thought he could not meet it. Alex explained that he would be exempt from the requirement to prove that he speaks English, as he is over 50 years of age and has been a permanent resident for more than 20 years. In addition, Alex explained to F.O. that his conviction did not mean that he lacked a moral reputation. The USCIS government agency agreed and approved F.O.'s naturalization. He has already taken the proper oath to become a U.S. citizen.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of D.S. (2019)
D.S. is a native of and a citizen of the Philippines and had already been granted permanent residency in the United States of America. She went to Alex for help with the naturalization application (Form N-400). Alex prepared the N-400 form to be filed with the authorities, prepared D.S. for the interview with the USCIS government agency, and accompanied her to the interview. He was approved for naturalization. She took the oath and is already a citizen of the United States of America.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of E.C.A. (2019)
E.C.A. is a native of and a citizen of the Philippines who had already been granted permanent residency in the United States of America. He wanted to become a citizen through the N-400 naturalization form, for which he went to Alex. Alex prepared and filed Form N-400, and met with E.C.A. in order to prepare it for his interview with the USCIS government agency, which Alex also attended. The naturalization was approved and E.C.A. has already taken the proper oath to become a U.S. citizen.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of E.M.D.M. (2019)
E.M.D.M. is a native of and a citizen of Mexico and had already been granted permanent residency in the United States of America. She wanted to become a citizen through the N-400 naturalization form, for which she went to Alex. Recently, E.M.D.M. had been convicted of drunk driving in Arizona, violating the laws of this state. So she was worried that she might be denied Form N-400. Alex prepared form N-400 to file with authorities, and in her memo explained in detail that E.M.D.M.'s conviction did not mean she lacked a moral reputation. The USCIS government agency agreed and approved the naturalization of E.M.D.M. She has already taken the oath due to become a U.S. citizen.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of Y.K. (2019)
Y.K. is a native of and a citizen of Russia who had been granted permanent residency in the United States several decades ago, and her goal was to become a citizen through the N-400 naturalization form, for which she turned to Alex. Y.K. had been concerned about filing the N-400 application because of the relevant five-year period, during which she traveled to Russia for seven months to care for her sickly mother. Alex prepared his N-400 form, and included a detailed memo in which he makes the argument that if the government agency were to take into account all the factors detailed in 8 C.F.R. § 316.5(c)–the guidelines containing a non-comprehensive list of factors that arbitrators should consider when determining whether the absence of a lawful permanent resident in excess of six months constitutes an interruption of his or her continued residence—the agency it should rule that the absence from Y.K.'s country of more than six months in fact did not constitute an interruption in the so-called "continuous residence" in the United States of America. After analyzing the case, the government agency UCIS agreed with the arguments that were presented and ruled that Y.K.'s seven-month trip had not interrupted the condition of "continuous residence." In addition, the agency also determined that Y.K. had met the necessary requirements for naturalization and therefore approved it. Y.K. has already sworn in the flag and is now a U.S. citizen.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of N.S. (2019)
N.S. is a native of and citizen of Turkey who had been granted permanent residence in the United States of America several years ago, and his goal was to become a citizen using the N-400 naturalization form, for which he turned to Alex. Alex prepared and filed Form N-400, and met with N.S. in order to prepare her for her interview with the USCIS government agency, and she was approved for naturalization. She recently took the proper oath to become a U.S. citizen.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of J.C. (2019)
J.C. is a native of and a citizen of Germany, and had been granted lawful permanent residence in the United States of America in 1985. More than 30 years later, she contacted Alex for advice on the steps needed to complete the naturalization process. After discussing in detail all the relevant facts of their case, Alex and J.C. decided to apply for the certificate of citizenship ("Form N-600"). Alex prepared a very detailed memo in which he presents to the U.S. Department of Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) all the pertinent facts and why J.C., under the law that existed at the time, before the Juvenile Citizenship Act was adopted in 2000, she would have obtained citizenship automatically. The government body nodded, and after participating in the oath of allegiance ceremony to the flag, J.C. received his certificate of citizenship.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of C.R. (2019)
C.R. is a native of and a citizen of Mexico and had been granted lawful permanent residence in the United States several decades ago. He had been reluctant to apply for citizenship by applying for naturalization ("Form N-400") because of certain criminal convictions he had had in the past. Thanks to the advice that Alex gave him on this issue, he always decided to process the application. The USCIS government body nodded that he is in fact a person of good moral character (and without judging him for mistakes he had made long ago), and was granted naturalization. C.R. has already taken his oath of allegiance to the flag and is a U.S. citizen.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of P.L. (2018)
P.L. is a native of and a citizen of Vietnam and wanted to obtain citizenship. He had previously submitted the application on his own and it had been denied. With Alex's assistance, he applied for it again and received approval.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of A.G. (2018)
A.G. is a native of and a citizen of Mexico and applied for citizenship. Alex guided her through the process and with her help and assistance, her application for citizenship was approved.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of M.P. (2018)
Alex assisted the client during the naturalization process. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approved the application and he received his U.S. citizenship at the ceremony held on June 8, 2018.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of F.A. (2018)
Alex assisted the client during the naturalization process. F.A. was recommended for citizenship and recently took the oath necessary to receive citizenship.

CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED Question of J.Z. (2018)
Alex assisted the client during the naturalization process, even attending her naturalization interview with him. The client was recommended for citizenship at the end of the interview and recently took the necessary oath to receive citizenship.

Family-Based Immigration

“PERMISSION TO REAPPLY” APPROVED & LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of E.S.R. (2022)
E.S.R., a native and citizen of Mexico, had been deported from the United States in the early 2000s after having resided unlawfully for several years. After he had attempted to reenter the United States illegally, he was subjected to expedited removal and returned to Mexico again. E.S.R. therefore found himself inadmissible for a period of 20 years pursuant to twenty-year bar of inadmissibility set out in section 212(a)(9)(A)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. And because of his attempt to reenter after having been unlawfully present in the United States for more than one year (and for his attempt to reenter after having been ordered removed), E.S.R. was also subject to what is known as the “permanent” bar set out in section 212(a)(9)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

After having lived in Mexico for 10 years, E.S.R. finally become eligible to seek “permission to reapply” in conjunction with his application for permanent residence. After Alex explained in great detail the complicated application process, E.S.R. and his wife (the United States citizen who would petition for E.S.R.) confided in Alex to guide them all the way through to the end. Alex helped them prove the bona fides of their marriage, which allowed the agency to approve the Petition for Alien Relative (“Form I-130”) in short order; he made the case for why E.S.R. merited a favorable exercise of discretion in the adjudication of his application seeking permission to reapply, which helped ensure his Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal (“Form I-212”) would be approved; and he helped guide E.S.R. and his wife through the U.S. State Department National Visa Center processing and made sure E.S.R. was well prepared for his interview. E.S.R. was ultimately issued an immigrant visa from the U.S. Consulate General in Ciudad Juarez, and he now resides with his family here in the United States as a lawful permanent resident.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of A.G. (2022)
A.G., a native and citizen of Mexico, had entered the United States with a B1/B2 “tourist” visa many years before with her parents. Having long overstayed the period of authorized stay, she was able to avail herself of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program. But when she married a United States citizen, she came to Alex for guidance on how to go about obtaining permanent residence. Alex explained that because she had entered with a visa—even though she had overstayed—she was eligible to adjust status under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. With Alex’s guidance, A.G. and her husband prepared a comprehensive packet that served to establish that A.G.’s marriage was bona fide and that she was admissible for permanent residence. Satisfied with the documentary evidence presented, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) did not even require an interview and granted the adjustment application. A.G. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

WAIVER APPROVED & LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of T.G.S. (2022)
T.G.S., a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States illegally as a teenager. Decades later, she has understandably come to see the United States as home. Married to a United States citizen, she and her husband consulted with Alex to see what could be done to secure permanent residence for T.G.S. Because she had not been “inspected and admitted or paroled,” T.G.S. was not eligible to adjust her status inside the United States. She therefore would have to complete consular processing. Moreover, because she had accrued more than one year of unlawful presence after turning eighteen years of age, she would be inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act the moment she departed the United States to attend her consular interview abroad. Having explained the whole process to them in great detail, they confided in Alex to help them all the way through to the end. Alex helped them prove the bona fides of their marriage, which allowed the agency to approve the Petition for Alien Relative (“Form I-130”) in short order; he made the case for why T.G.S.’s husband would suffer “extreme hardship” if T.G.S. were denied admission, which helped ensure the Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver (“Form I-601A”) would be approved; he helped guide them through the U.S. State Department National Visa Center processing; and made sure T.G.S. was well prepared for her interview. T.G.S. was ultimately issued an immigrant visa after attending her consular interview at the U.S. Consulate General in Ciudad Juarez, and she now resides with her family here in the United States as a lawful permanent resident.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of J.T. (2022)
J.T., a native and citizen of the Philippines, entered the United States with a B1/B2 “tourist” visa to visit her family in the United States. While visiting, her boyfriend, a U.S. citizen, proposed to her. Weeks turned into months, and given the instability caused worldwide by the COVID-19 pandemic, J.T.’s husband did not want to risk being separated from J.T. for what could be an exceptionally long period of time. Accordingly, they met with Alex who took on their case and helped them prepare an adjustment of status application. Having been inspected and admitted as a tourist, J.T. was eligible to adjust status under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Moreover, satisfied that J.T.’s marriage was bona fide and that she was admissible for permanent residence, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted the adjustment application, and J.T. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of D.M. (2022)
D.M. is a native and citizen of Canada who frequented the United States as a visitor. After marrying his U.S. citizen girlfriend, he wanted to know whether it would be possible to obtain permanent residence without having to return to Canada since the pandemic made international travel problematic and gave D.M. and his wife concerns about borders being closed. Alex explained to them that D.M., having been “inspected and admitted” as a visitor, was eligible to adjust his status. Accordingly, Alex prepared a complete adjustment packet that served to establish that D.M.’s marriage was bona fide, that he was eligible to adjust status, and that he was admissible for permanent residence. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted the adjustment application, and D.M. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of V.K. (2022)
V.K. is a native and citizen of India who initially arrived in the United States with an F-1 “student” visa but stayed long after having violated the terms of his nonimmigrant visa. Years later, V.K. married his United States citizen girlfriend, and the two of them consulted Alex on the likelihood of securing permanent residence for V.K. despite his current circumstances. Alex prepared a complete adjustment packet that served to establish that V.K.’s marriage was bona fide, that he was eligible to adjust status, and that he was admissible for permanent residence. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted the adjustment application, and V.K. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of A.I.C. (2022)
A.I.C. is a native and citizen of Japan who had traveled several times between Japan and the United States. During the course of her travels, she met her boyfriend who, after A.I.C.’s most recent entry to the United States, proposed to her. After they married, they approached Alex for assistance on how to obtain permanent residence for A.I.C. Given A.I.C.’s multiple entries, Alex first made sure that A.I.C. had not committed any previous immigration violations. After verifying that all was in order, Alex prepared a complete adjustment packet that served to establish that A.I.C.’s marriage was bona fide, that she was eligible to adjust status, and that she was admissible for permanent residence. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted the adjustment application, and A.I.C. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of H.S. (2022)
H.S., a native and citizen of Mexico, had entered the United States with a TN2 visa but had since violated the terms of his visa. Married to a U.S. citizen, he learned that it might be possible to adjust status notwithstanding the grounds of ineligibility set out in section 245(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Alex helped H.S. and his wife prepare an application for adjustment that contained the evidence needed to establish all of the elements set out in section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted the adjustment application, and H.S. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of L.P. (2022)
L.P. is a native and citizen of Brazil who entered the United States with a B-2 visa but overstayed for several years. After marrying a U.S. citizen, L.P. and his wife consulted Alex on whether it would be possible to obtain permanent residence for L.P. despite L.P.’s overstay. Alex prepared a complete adjustment packet that served to establish that L.P.’s marriage was bona fide, that he was eligible to adjust status, and that he was admissible for permanent residence. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted the adjustment application, and L.P. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of K.D. (2022)
K.D., a native and citizen of Canada, entered the United States as a tourist. What was supposed to be only a temporary stay became a prolonged one because of the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on international travel. Not wanting to risk being separated from her, K.D.’s boyfriend asked her to marry him. After they married, they consulted with Alex on what options were available to keep K.D. in the United States lawfully. Having been inspected and admitted, K.D. was eligible to adjust status under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Alex helped K.D. and her husband prepare an application for adjustment that established that K.D.’s marriage was bona fide and that she was admissible for permanent residence. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted the adjustment application, and K.D. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

K-1 VISA ISSUED / LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of D.A.T.F. (2021)
D.A.T.F. is a native and citizen of the Philippines who became engaged with a United States citizen. D.A.T.F.’s fiancé contracted Alex to assist with the whole process from bringing D.A.T.F. from the Philippines to the United States and to helping D.A.T.F. secure lawful permanent residence in the United States. Alex helped D.A.T.F. through the whole process, including the preparation and filing of the Petition for Alien Fiancé (“Form I-129F”), the application for the K-1 visa, and the preparation and filing of the adjustment application. D.A.T.F. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of C.B.T. (2021)
C.B.T. is a native and citizen of the Philippines who entered the United States with a J-1 visa. After marrying a U.S. citizen and relocating to Las Vegas, C.B.T. and her husband sought out Alex’s aid in pursuing adjustment of status. Alex prepared a complete adjustment packet that served to establish that C.B.T.’s marriage was bona fide and that she was admissible for permanent residence. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) agreed and granted the adjustment application. C.B.T. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of J.S.S. (2021)
J.S.S. is a native and citizen of Suriname who entered the United States with a B-2 visa. After marrying a U.S. citizen, J.S.S. and her husband sought out Alex’s aid in pursuing adjustment of status. Alex prepared a complete adjustment packet that served to establish that J.S.S.’s marriage was bona fide and that she was admissible for permanent residence. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) agreed and granted the adjustment application. J.S.S. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of A.L.C. (2021)
A.L.C. is a native and citizen of the Philippines who entered the United States with a J-1 visa. After marrying a U.S. citizen, A.L.C. and his wife consulted Alex on whether it would be possible to obtain permanent residence for A.L.C. despite A.L.C.’s overstay. Alex prepared a complete adjustment packet that served to establish that C.B.T.’s marriage was bona fide, that he was eligible to adjust status, and that he was admissible for permanent residence. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted the adjustment application, and A.L.C. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of R.C.M. (2021)
R.C.M. is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States more than 30 years ago without being inspected and admitted or paroled. Her lawful permanent resident spouse had filed a Petition for Alien Relative (“Form I-130”) on her behalf in 1998, but they did not pursue the matter further when it was pending with the U.S. State Department, and therefore the petition itself had been terminated as a result of this inaction. Having a U.S. citizen daughter who was over 21 years of age, Alex explained to R.C.M. that she was still eligible to adjust her status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by virtue of the 1998 petition since an “immigrant visa” was still going to be immediately available to her as an “immediate relative” (and this, in turn, would be established by the filing of another Form I-130, but this time through her U.S. citizen daughter). Alex prepared a thorough adjustment packet that served to establish R.C.M’s statutory eligibility for adjustment under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Satisfied with the record before it, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted R.C.M.’s adjustment application, and R.C.M. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of F.P. (2021)
F.P. is a native and citizen of Jamaica who entered the United States with an F-1 visa and had overstayed long after having violated the terms of his nonimmigrant visa. After several years of marriage with a U.S. citizen, F.P. sought Alex’s aid to file for adjustment of status. F.P. had concerns because of an arrest for petit theft in violation of Nevada law. Alex explained that the circumstances surrounding F.P.’s criminal case did not render him inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and Alex prepared the filing accordingly. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) found that F.P. met his burden of proving that he was still admissible despite his previous adverse encounter with law enforcement and granted the adjustment application. F.P. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of M.C.N. (2021)
M.C.N. is a native and citizen of the Philippines who entered the United States with a K1 “fiancé” visa. After marrying her U.S. citizen fiancé, M.C.N. contracted Alex to assist with the adjustment of status process. Alex prepared a complete adjustment packet that served to establish that M.C.N.’s marriage was bona fide and that she was admissible for permanent residence. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) agreed and granted the adjustment application. M.C.N. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

FORM I-130 REOPENED AND APPROVED Principe v. Moore, Case No. 2:21-cv-00636-GMN-VCF (D. Nev. 2021)
Mrs. Principe is a citizen of the United States who filed a Petition for Alien Relative (“Form I-130”) on behalf of her husband Mr. Principe. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied the Form I-130 on the basis that Mr. Principe was forever barred pursuant to section 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act from becoming the beneficiary of a family-based petition because of the agency’s prior finding that he attempted to evade the immigration laws by entering into a prior marriage with a U.S. citizen several years before.

Mr. and Mrs. Principe hired Alex after an unsuccessful appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. On their behalf, Alex filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada raising three causes of action: (1) first, that in adjudicating Mrs. Principe’s Form I-130, USCIS did not properly observe the procedure required by law insofar as the agency failed to conduct an independent analysis of the evidence; (2) second, that USCIS’s adjudication of Mrs. Principe’s Form I-130 was not in accordance with the law insofar as the record did not include “substantial and probative” evidence that Mr. Principe’s prior marriage was entered into for purposes of evading the immigration laws; and (3) third, that even assuming the record did contain “substantial and probative evidence” that Mr. Principe’s prior marriage was entered into for purposes of evading the immigration laws, USCIS’s adjudication of Mrs. Principe’s Form I-130 was not in accordance with the law insofar as the agency failed to recognize that Mr. and Mrs. Principe did successfully rebut USCIS’s finding of marriage fraud.

Shortly after suit was filed, USCIS reopened the Form I-130 and subsequently approved it. The adjustment application that was premised on that Form I-130 was likewise reopened and approved. Mr. Principe is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

K-1 VISA GRANTED / LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of A.P. (2021)
A.P. is a native and citizen of the Philippines who after becoming engaged with a U.S. citizen wanted to pursue a K1 “fiancé” visa because her native country did not recognize same-sex marriages. Accordingly, she and her U.S. citizen fiancé contracted Alex to assist with the fiancé petition process with U.S. Department of Homeland Security and then the consular processing with the U.S. Department of State. With Alex’s help, A.P. secured her K1 visa without incident, entered the United States, and married her U.S. citizen fiancé as contemplated. Alex then prepared and filed the adjustment of status application so that A.P. could obtain permanent resident status. A.P. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of D.D.O. (2021)
D.D.O. is a native and citizen of Italy who came to the United States with an F1 “student” visa to complete his studies. While going to school, he fell in love with a United States citizen. After marrying, they approached Alex for assistance in filing an adjustment packet with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). D.D.O and his husband were a bit concerned that the agency would question their marriage because of the substantial age difference. Alex explained that this would not be an issue at all so long as the “bona fides” of the marriage were well documented. Alex prepared the case accordingly, and USCIS granted D.D.O.’s adjustment application at the interview. D.D.O. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of M.G.C. (2021)
M.G.C. is a native and citizen of Colombia who entered the United States with a B2 “tourist” visa to visit his girlfriend, a lawful permanent resident of the United States. A few months into his stay, M.G.C. and his girlfriend decided to marry. They approached Alex for assistance in filing an adjustment packet with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). After learning that M.G.C.’s wife had acquired her lawful permanent residence through a prior marriage to a U.S. citizen less than five years before, Alex explained to M.G.C. and his wife that, pursuant to section 204(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, she would have the added burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that her prior marriage was “bona fide” in order to get this second Form I-130 approved. Accordingly, Alex prepared the case such that this heightened additional burden was satisfied with the initial filing. Shortly after the interview, USCIS granted M.G.C’s adjustment application, and M.G.C. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of S.B. (2021)
S.B., a native and citizen of the Philippines, had entered the United States with a B2 “tourist” visa many years ago. Having a U.S. citizen son who just turned twenty-one years old, she hired Alex to help her and her son file a complete adjustment packet with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Alex put together a filing that established that S.B. had been previously inspected and admitted, that she was admissible for permanent residence, and that she merited adjustment in the exercise of discretion. USCIS granted the adjustment application without even requiring an interview, and S.B. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of P.H. (2021)
P.H., a native and citizen of China, had entered the United States with a B2 “tourist” visa and within 24 hours of her entry, she married her U.S. citizen boyfriend. After having heard startling tales of what could happen if U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) believes a marriage is not “bona fide,” P.H. and her husband retained Alex to help represent them in adjustment of status proceedings before the agency. Alex carefully put together a filing that established the “bona fides” of P.H.’s marriage and, no less importantly, that established that P.H. did not have immigrant intent at the time she applied for her tourist visa and entered the United States with that visa. USCIS ultimately granted the adjustment application, and P.H. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of I.B. (2021)
I.B., a native and citizen of Albania, had entered the United States with a K1 “fiance” visa and married her U.S. citizen fiancé as contemplated. After their marriage, I.B. and her husband retained Alex to file an adjustment of status application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). In addition to handling all of the paperwork involved in the process, Alex also includes included as part of his representation a thorough preparation for the interview that takes place at the end of the process. I.B. and her husband were particularly grateful for this latter aspect of the representation when it came to pass that I.B. and her husband were separated during the interview and interrogated separately. Because they were well prepared, I.B. and her husband were comfortable notwithstanding and answered all questions consistently. The immigration officer approved I.B.’s adjustment application on the spot, and I.B. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of J.M.J. (2021)
J.M.J., a native and citizen of the Philippines, had entered the United States with a B2 “tourist.” Shortly after arriving in the United States, she became pregnant and decided to overstay her authorized period of stay and take up residence with her U.S. citizen spouse. Several years later, she reached out to Alex to help in preparing and filing an adjustment of status application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Alex put together a filing that established that J.M.J. had been previously inspected and admitted, that she was admissible for permanent residence, and that she merited adjustment in the exercise of discretion. USCIS granted the adjustment application, and J.M.J. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of M.O.B. (2021)
M.O.B., a native and citizen of Romania, had entered the United States with a K1 “fiancé” visa and married his U.S. citizen fiancé within a month after entry. After their marriage, M.O.B. and his wife retained Alex to file an adjustment of status application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) because they felt overwhelmed by all the paperwork and supporting documentation that needed to be filed. Alex prepared a filing that established the “bona fides” of M.O.B.’s marriage and established that M.O.B. was admissible for permanent residence. USCIS approved the adjustment application, and M.O.B. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of F.B. (2021)
F.B., a native and citizen of Brazil, had entered the United States with a B2 “tourist” visa. After she married a U.S. citizen, her U.S. citizen spouse filed a Petition for Alien Relative (“Form I-130”) on her behalf. After several difficulties that F.B. believed could have been avoided with the help of an attorney, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) did ultimately grant the Form I-130. In light of her previous difficulties with the Form I-130, however, F.B. decided to contract Alex’s services to help with the adjustment process. Alex put together a filing that established that F.B. had been previously inspected and admitted, that she was admissible for permanent residence, and that she merited adjustment in the exercise of discretion. USCIS granted the adjustment application, and F.B. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of C.S. (2021)
C.S., a native and citizen of Guyana, had entered the United States with a B2 “tourist” visa shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in the United States. Married to a U.S. citizen, her U.S. citizen spouse feared what might happen if C.S. had to return to her native country. Accordingly, she and C.S. consulted with Alex who explained to them that C.S. could pursue adjustment of status here in the United States. C.S. and her spouse retained Alex to pursue adjustment of status. Alex put together a filing that established that C.S. had been previously inspected and admitted, that she was admissible for permanent residence, and that she merited adjustment in the exercise of discretion. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted the adjustment application, and C.S. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.  

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of E.S. (2021)
E.S., a native and citizen of Russia, had entered the United States with a B2 “tourist” visa. A few months after entry, she and her U.S. citizen husband decided that they wanted to reside permanently in the United States. After consulting Alex, E.S and her husband retained Alex to represent them before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) in adjustment proceedings. Alex put together a filing establishing all the necessary elements for adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. USCIS granted the adjustment application, and E.S. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States. 

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of I.G.C. (2021)
I.G.C., a native and citizen of Chile, had lawfully entered the United States with a B1/B2 nonimmigrant visa. In the United States, I.G.C. married a lawful permanent resident who had an Application for Naturalization (“Form N-400”) pending. I.G.C. wanted to adjust his status but because he had overstayed his visa, he was concerned that he would be ineligible for adjustment of status under section 245(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act since his wife was not yet a U.S. citizen. Alex explained that so long as his wife became a U.S. citizen by the time of adjudication of the adjustment application, I.G.C. would qualify as an “immediate relative” under the immigration laws and therefore not be subject to the unlawful-presence bar set out in section 245(e). While I.G.C.’s adjustment application was pending, his wife was sworn in as a U.S. citizen. Come the time of the interview, the immigration officer found that I.G.C. had met all the necessary requirements for adjustment under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and granted I.G.C.’s adjustment application. I.G.C. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States. 

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of S.N.W. (2021)
S.N.W., a native and citizen of Kenya, and his U.S. citizen spouse met with Alex after they received a Notice of Intent to Deny (“NOID”), stating that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) intended to deny the Petition for Alien Relative (“Form I-130”) pursuant to section 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act because it determined that S.N.W. had previously entered into a marriage with his first wife “for the purpose of evading the immigration laws.” Alex helped S.N.W. and his spouse put together a voluminous response that addressed each of the agency’s allegations respecting the prior marriage. When the agency went ahead and denied the Form I-130, Alex encouraged S.N.W. and his wife to file an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals, explaining that the record was more than sufficient to overcome the rebuttable presumption that S.N.W. had previously married a U.S. citizen solely to obtain permanent residence. Shortly after Alex filed the appeal, USCIS reopened and approved the Form I-130 and subsequently reopened and approved the adjustment application that was predicated on the Form I-130. S.N.W. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of S.Y.C. (2021)
S.Y.C., a native and citizen of Costa Rica, had entered the United States with a B2 “tourist” visa. Shortly after her entry, she and her U.S. citizen fiancé decided to marry before S.Y.C.’s authorized period of stay expired. After the marriage, S.Y.C. and her husband met with Alex, and S.Y.C.’s husband told Alex that he did not want S.Y.C. to return to Costa Rica to complete the more cumbersome process that is consular processing. Alex explained that S.Y.C. would be eligible to adjust status pursuant to section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act whereby the entire process could be completed here in the United States. Alex helped prepare an adjustment filing that properly documented the bona fides of S.Y.C.’s relationship with her husband and that contained the evidence needed to meet S.Y.C.’s burden of establishing admissibility to the United States. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted S.Y.C.’s adjustment application, and S.Y.C. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States. 

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS GRANTED Matter of A.P.A. (2021)
A.P.A., a native and citizen of the Philippines, had entered the United States with a J1 visa. Years after having overstayed, A.P.A. married a U.S. citizen. Shortly after the marriage, A.P.A. and his husband met with Alex, and A.P.A’s husband expressed his concern that A.P.A would not be eligible to adjust status because of A.P.A’s prior entry with a J1 visa and failure to return to the Philippines. Alex reviewed the terms of A.P.A.’s J1 visa and explained to A.P.A. and his husband that A.P.A. would be eligible to adjust status pursuant to section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act because he was actually exempt from the foreign residency requirement. Alex helped prepare an adjustment filing that properly documented the bona fides of A.P.A.’s relationship with his husband and that contained the evidence needed to meet A.P.A.’s burden of establishing admissibility to the United States. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) granted A.P.A.’s adjustment application, and [JJ1] A.P.A. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of G.M. (2020)
G.M. is a native and citizen of Turkey who is married a U.S. citizen. Her U.S. citizen spouse sought Alex’s help to bring G.M. from Turkey 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. G.M. was issued an immigrant visa and has been admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident.

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

BOND GRANTED Matter of J.M.M. (2022)
J.M.M. is a native and citizen of Guatemala who had been arrested for driving under the influence in violation of Utah law. After he was bailed out of state custody, he was transferred to immigration custody where the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) refused to release J.M.M. on a bond. Alex filed a motion seeking a custody redetermination hearing with the Las Vegas Immigration Court on his behalf, arguing that J.M.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. J.M.M. was released from immigration custody after posting this bond.

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.  

DEPORTATION AVOIDED AND LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE GRANTED Matter of P.F. (2022)
P.F. is a native and citizen of Guatemala who had been placed in removal proceedings by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) shortly after he had been arrested for allegedly committing battery on a protected person in violation of Nevada law. Because he was a visa overstay, DHS charged him as a deportable alien. But because he was already married to a United States citizen, Alex explained that P.F. would be able to seek adjustment of status in removal proceedings on the basis of a family petition. Alex assisted P.F. and his spouse with the preparation and filing of the Petition for Alien Relative (“Form I-130”), making sure to prove the “bona fides” of the marriage. After securing approval of the Form I-130, Alex thoroughly prepared the adjustment application and was able to successfully argue that P.F. did not require a waiver under section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act because P.F.’s conviction for battery on a protected person in violation of Nevada law should not be deemed a conviction for a “crime involving moral turpitude” as that term appears in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Satisfied that P.F. was otherwise statutorily eligible to adjust status under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and that P.F. merited a favorable exercise of discretion, the presiding immigration judge granted P.F.’s adjustment application. P.F. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

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.

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.

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.

APPLICATION FOR ASYLUM GRANTED  Matter of T.T. (2021)
T.T. is a native and citizen of Sri Lanka who entered the United States, fleeing political persecution from her native country. She had hired another attorney to file on her behalf an Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“Form I-589”) with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration and Services (“USCIS”). The agency, however, referred her case to the Las Vegas Immigration Court, alleging that it found material inconsistencies between the evidence she had filed in support of her Form I-589 and the responses she provided at the asylum interview. Dissatisfied with the services of her previous attorney, T.T. sought the assistance of Alex to represent her in removal proceedings. Alex prepared T.T. for the individual hearing, working through all the alleged inconsistencies and making sure T.T. would be prepared for the rigorous cross-examination that she would be subjected to by counsel for the government. The presiding immigration judge ultimately found that T.T. was a credible witness and was satisfied with the evidence presented in support of her asylum application. Accordingly, T.T. was granted asylum in the United States.

APPLICATION FOR ASYLUM GRANTED  Matter of A.R.C. (2021)
A.R.C. is a native and citizen of Venezuela who entered the United States, fleeing political persecution from his native country. On his own, he filed an Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“Form I-589”) with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration and Services (“USCIS”). The agency, however, referred his case to the Las Vegas Immigration Court, alleging that it found material inconsistencies between the evidence he had filed in support of his Form I-589 and the responses he provided at the asylum interview. Shortly thereafter, A.R.C. sought the assistance of Alex to represent him in his removal proceedings. Alex prepared A.R.C. for the individual hearing, working through all the alleged inconsistencies and making sure A.R.C. would be prepared for the rigorous cross-examination that he would be subjected to by counsel for the government. The presiding immigration judge ultimately found that A.R.C. was a credible witness and was satisfied with the evidence presented in support of his asylum application. Accordingly, A.R.C. was granted asylum in the United States.

ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION GRANTED AND PERMANENT RESIDENCE CONFERRED Matter of R.W. (2021)
R.W. is a native and citizen of Kenya who had entered the United States with tourist visa. She had filed for an extension of her authorized period of stay but was denied and subsequently placed in removal proceedings by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). Distraught, she and her husband met with Alex to inquire what could be done to prevent her from being removed to Kenya. Alex explained that as the spouse of a U.S. citizen, R.W. was able to obtain “immediate relative” status if her husband filed a Petition for Alien Relative (“Form I-130”) on her behalf. This he did, and after approval of the Form I-130, Alex filed on R.W.’s behalf a complete adjustment application at the Las Vegas Immigration Court. Satisfied that R.W. met her burden of establishing statutory eligibility for adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the presiding immigration judge granted R.W.’s adjustment application. R.W. is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

APPLICATION FOR ASYLUM GRANTED  Matter of M.V.S. (2020)
M.V.S. is a native and citizen of Colombia who entered the United States, fleeing political persecution from her native country. She had suffered past persecution at the hands of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (“FARC”). Her case had been administratively closed back in 2015 but after it had been recently recalendared, she contracted Alex’s services. M.V.S. expressed her concerns that because eight years had passed since she filed her Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“Form I-589”), she didn’t stand a chance at obtaining asylum. Alex explained to her that so long as she could credibly establish that she was the victim of past political persecution and that she was unable to avail herself of the protection of her native country, a rebuttable presumption would arise that she has a well-founded fear of future political persecution. Alex prepared the case accordingly, and, at the hearing on the asylum application, the presiding immigration judge found that M.V.S. had credibly established that she had suffered past political persecution and that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) failed to rebut the presumption of a well-founded fear of future political persecution. M.V.S. was therefore granted asylum here in the United States.   

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 © 2022 · Powered by LOCALiQ