Father of US Armed Forces Member Granted Stay of Removal in Appellate Court

Client: Family
Client’s Country of Origin: Mexico
Case Type: Removal and Parole In Place
Date of Application: August 2017
Date of Approval: December 2017

Our client retained Attorney Frank Krajenke of Herman Legal Group because he was facing removal proceedings. A native and citizen of Mexico, our client and entered the US in the 1990s. He is also a father of five, with the two elder children enrolled as US Armed Forces members, one of which is stationed overseas in Japan.

Our client was convicted of a removable offense and became subject to return to Mexico along with the custody of his younger children. Pending his removal, our client was concerned about finding new employment to support his family and the growth therapy necessary for his children if returned to his home country. Upon consulting us, Attorney Krajenke assisted in the following matter.

Krajenke aided in reopening the appeal and filed a Petition for Review for the court to review the Immigration Judge’s decision on removal. In addition, because our client is the father of active duty US military members, Krajenke noted that he may be eligible for “Parole in Place” (“PIP”). PIP is an immigration option for families of the US military to obtain an authorized stay. The policy also helps protect US-residing family members from deportation matters and may further enable persons for Adjustment of Status.

With the help of Herman Legal Group counsel, the US appellate court granted our client a Stay of Removal, an exceptional outcome for the matter. In the meantime, our counsel also assisted with filing a PIP application in order to gain our client’s protection from deportation.

While other issues of the case are still pending, the fact that the appellate court granted Stay of Removal and the Board of Immigration Appeals subsequently reopened the appeal is favorable for our client’s future status.

Citizen of Jordan Successfully Obtains Marriage Green Card

Client: Lawful Permanent Resident
Client’s Country of Origin: Jordan
Case Type: Marriage Green Card/Asylum
Date of Application: March 2016
Date of Approval: Month 2019

In 2016, our client, a citizen of Jordan, entered the US on a visitor visa for personal travel. Shortly afterward, he applied for asylum. During the waiting period of the asylum application, our client united in marriage with a US citizen, and Chief Paralegal Connie Cook of Herman Legal Group assisted with filing for a marriage green card application concurrently with closing the asylum case.

Cook’s tactic to immediately file for a marriage green card application and administratively close the asylum case was extremely beneficial for our client. Firstly, asylum applications and processing are largely more extensive.

The applicant must file lengthy documents, produce fingerprints, background screening, and attend interviews prior to determining asylum approval or denial. In the US, the average timeframe for an asylum application to decision takes six months; however, the USCIS previously stated that due to increased workload priority related to border enforcement, there have been scheduling delays for asylum interviews.

Due to the above circumstances, our client essentially waited on asylum approval for nearly three years. However, with Herman Legal Group counsel, our client’s marriage green card application was filed and approved this year within months.

Furthermore, the asylum interview was just scheduled this year, where Cook attended the interview with our client and administratively closed the case due to the pending marriage green card approval.

Armenian Tourist Receives F-1 Status after Untimely Service Adjudication Process

Client: Student
Client’s Country of Origin: Armenia
Case Type: I-539; Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status

While hundreds of applications and thousands of paperwork are filed to the USCIS, it is foreseeable that mistakes or errors may occur from time to time. However, this oversight does not condone putting petitioners at fault for circumstances beyond their control. Our client, a citizen of Armenia, came to the US on a tourist visa. During her visit, she became interested in pursuing an American education. In order to do so, her first step would be to obtain an F-1 student visa. Generally, an immigrant would need to return to their home country’s embassy and apply for a visa there; however, an immigrant with lawful status within the US may file an I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant status if he or she meets the requirements.

In general, it may take months to change to a student visa. During the time that the USCIS is adjudicating the immigrant’s application, he or she cannot go to school in the meantime. If any delays occur, the immigrant’s lawful status is at risk of expiring prior to his or her application’s approval. Subsequently, delays cause further issues with the Service, the immigrant, and the school.

In this case, our client filed her application for a student visa during her B-1 tourist status. The university program she was admitted to record that the original start date for classes was within 30 days of termination of her B-1 status.

Due to delays with the Service evaluating her application, without her knowledge, the university deferred the start date by nearly half a year. This caused the Service to deny her application in light of her B-1 status expiration to occur prior to the program’s start date, which deemed our client ineligible to request a change of status.

Our client did not understand why she received denial—she had met all the requirements and produced all necessary documents in order to change to student status and begin her education. Wanting to give up, she approached Attorney Richard Herman seeking advice.

First, Attorney Herman assisted in filing a second application. Additional filings are necessary to provide “bridge” status for the immigrant during the USCIS adjudication process, that way our client would not (1) risk expiration of status; and (2) lose her eligibility for a student visa. Second, Attorney Herman filed to reconsider our client’s denial based on USCIS error. The Service had based its denial on grounds that our client had not provided facts or reasoning in order to reconsider her change of status. However, our client attached many exhibits to the original application.

Therefore, counsel argued that not only did the Service error in misplacing those documents when issuing a denial but also the Service never requested further evidence from our client in order to fairly consider her application.

Attorney Herman provided substantial evidence to display that our client should not be at fault due to the Service’s untimely adjudication of her original application and based on the fact that proper evidence was supplied at the time of the initial decision. After many hurdles and drawn-out patience, our client was finally issued an approval notice to change to F-1 student status. Soon later, she began her American dream.

Unlawful Entry Waived for Client’s Permanent Residency Approval

Client: Family
Client’s Country of Origin: Guatemala
Case Type: I-601A Waiver
Date of Application: Month 2015
Date of Approval: Month 2017

Chief Paralegal Connie Cook of Herman Legal Group assisted our client in the process of visa application. Our client entered the US from Guatemala without inspection for personal travel. During his time in the US, our client connected with a friend established a long-term relationship, and the two became parents to a US-born child.

Following this relationship, his partner sponsored him in filing an I-130 Petition in order to apply for US lawful permanent resident status. However, because our client held an unlawful presence in the country, the process to obtain a visa would become more challenging.

Cook assisted our client in filing an I-601A waiver after the sponsored petition was granted. An I-601A waiver is when the federal government excuses the applicant’s immigration violation under its discretion.

Here, if granted, the waiver would assist with excusing our client’s unlawful presence in the country and allow him to adjust his status. With the assistance of Herman Legal Group counsel, our client’s waiver was accepted for consideration by the Immigration Visa Office in the applicant’s home country.

Our client was then required to return to Guatemala for the interview where he would be considered for waiver. Although not required, our client’s partner insisted on attending the interview with him for support. In conclusion, the Immigration Visa Office decided to approve the I-601A waiver and grant our client his visa allowing him to enter back into the US as a lawful permanent resident.

Military Spouse Cures Unlawful Entry through Parole-in-Place

Client: Immediate Family Member of US Military
Client’s Country of Origin: Mexico
Case Type: Parole-in-Place; I-131 Application for Travel Document

Our client approached Attorney Richard Herman of Herman Legal Group while seeking to obtain lawful status. Based on her background, this goal would be limited and difficult to achieve. Our client, a native of Mexico, originally came to the US as an undocumented minor.

By law, if you enter the States illegally, you cannot adjust your status for lawful permanent residence. Due to these circumstances, our client’s options were to either stay in the US undocumented and at high risk of deportation or leave the country for an extended period of time while applying for a waiver.

Our client’s husband, however, is a US citizen who served in the Navy for five years. During his time of active duty, he received many awards and commendations from Navy officers of higher rankings.

Once he was honorably discharged, he returned to his home in Ohio to live with his stay-at-home wife and their US-born son. Based on his former US military status, Attorney Herman assisted in the preparation of the husband’s sponsorship for his wife, as she is deemed eligible to apply for the Parole in Place program (“PIP”).

PIP is a discretionary option in which an immediate family member of an individual who is or was a member of the US armed forces may be granted lawful residence in 1-year increments. In this case, our client would benefit from PIP as the unlawful entry into the US is not a factor in the USCIS adjudication of applications. If granted PIP status, it would essentially allow our client to live a normal life outside the shadows—it would remove our client’s inadmissibility factor and deem her eligible to adjust her status giving her work and travel authorization.

Our client stressed that she lives in fear every day. Fearing that ICE would one day find her and take her away, she limited attending family outings and even leaving the house in order to avoid any issues. She couldn’t drive her son to school or medical appointments without a license and felt that her hidden status burdens her family.

In order to receive her best chances of obtaining status, Attorney Herman strategized in preparing an application that stressed the most important facts. First, our client proves that she is a person of good moral character.

While she unlawfully entered the country, she was brought to the US as a young child. She is unfamiliar with Mexico and only remembers the hardships that her family went through in order to survive and find opportunity in America. In addition, she has no criminal arrests or convictions.

Although a stay-at-home mother, our client’s husband provides that she served as “his rock” through hard times on the naval ship and supported him during three deployments. In addition, counsel provided evidence of extreme hardship if our client were to be deported.

Our client’s husband stressed that although he brings in the income, our client overall takes care of the family. She handles the finances, takes care of school and medical scheduling, and all paperwork that comes with it. If deported, our client’s family would have to go with her, leaving them subject to not receiving proper education and medication necessary to their specific disabilities and health issues.

Under these circumstances, our client’s PIP application was quickly granted. She was happy and relieved with the outcome in the sense that she may now live with her family without risk. The overall process took under two years, and our client is now able to adjust her status.

Pending Asylum Applicant Receives Quick Marriage Visa Approval

Client: Family
Client’s Country of Origin: Burkina Faso
Case Type: I-485 Application for Marriage Visa/Asylum
Date of Application: October 2018
Date of Approval: June 2019

Our client, a citizen of Burkina Faso, came to the US originally seeking asylum. During his time in the states, he obtained work and delivered medication to pharmacies around town. While on the job, he met a woman technician and became drawn to her. Soon later, they began talking and started a relationship, and eventually, the technician became his wife.

Once the two united in marriage, our client considered applying for a marriage green card. However, he was still on pending asylum status. Our client retained Herman Legal Group counsel to receive guidance on what steps to take in order to obtain lawful permanent residency as quickly and efficiently as possible. Attorney Erin James assisted with the foregoing matter.

Because asylum cases may take months to years before an interview date is assigned, Attorney James knew how to stagger the process. She helped our client file an I-485 application for a marriage visa and informed a couple of the interview process.

The asylum interview was scheduled first. Attorney James attended that interview with our client, along with the letter stating that the client has a pending marriage green card application, and requested to administratively close the asylum case, which was closed that day.

In light of concerns of marriage fraud, the USCIS conducts strict interviews seeking answers in specificity and unanimity. At our client’s interview, complications arose. Due to a language barrier, our client could not comprehend all questions posed by the officer. As a result, our client was not providing concrete answers. The interview became tough as the officer grew frustrated, impatient, and began searching for flaws in the marriage.

In the end, our client relieved the tension and told authentic stories about the marriage that eventually got the officer enjoying them. Within a few days, the couple was approved for a marriage visa.

Our client and his wife were very happy about the outcome.

Herman Legal Group Assists Client’s Access to Life-Saving Medical Treatment

Client: Non-Immigrant Temporary Visitor
Client’s Country of Origin: Canada
Case Type: Request for Entry into the US as B2 Temporary Visitor; Humanitarian
Date of Application: August 2018
Date of Approval: February 2019

Herman Legal Group is retained by many Canadian clients and works with many Canadian immigration lawyers, too. In this case, our client, a citizen of Canada, comes from a wealthy, successful family. However, as a young man, he suffered from serious medical issues that consumed his day-to-day life. After seeking medical institutions and trying several treatments in Canada, nothing worked. Our client’s family burdened in distress over their son’s health. Finally, they came across a medical clinic located in Utah that would treat our client’s needs, and after trial, the clinic’s assistance was found successful.

Our client originally came to the US on a B-2 tourism visa in order to receive his medical treatment. For B-2 nonimmigrant visas, the applicant is admitted into the US for temporary duration for a specific purpose.

In this case, our client’s sole purpose to enter the US was to obtain treatment. However, our client was unaware that his admittance was limited to a six-month duration. Our client stayed at the medical facility for over the amount of time his visa was granted by 18 months.

This means that he was technically present as an undocumented immigrant in the states for over a year. Unaware of this issue, our client returned to Canada, and a few years later attempted to re-enter the US for treatment. Officials at the border denied his entry due to his overstay in the past, which deemed him legally inadmissible.

Furthermore, the officers instructed our client to file an I-192 Application for Advance Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant based on his urgent need for medical treatment. Immediately, our client filed the form and paid all fees there at the border. Six months went by without our client receiving treatment and still waiting upon approval of his application.

Fortunately, our client’s family knew Attorney Richard Herman and asked for his help. In immigration law, it is a difficult task to establish a successful case to waive a client’s inadmissibility when little to no evidence is present. Despite this circumstance, Attorney Herman provided his expert assistance in order to help our client attend to his serious health matter.

Attorney Herman assembled as much supplementary evidence in order to establish that our client is entitled to receive a temporary visa. The USCIS sets the standard in assessing an immigrant’s entitlement to a B-1/B-2 temporary classification:

“The consular officer must assess if the applicant: (1) has a resident in a foreign country, which they do not intend to abandon; (2) intend to enter the US for a period of specifically limited duration; and (3) seeks admission for the sole purpose of engaging in legitimate activities relating to business or pleasure.”

Upholding these requirements, counsel provided affidavits of our client and his family explaining the past overstay for treatment with no intention of violating US immigration laws—other than his prior overstay for intensive medical aid, our client has no other criminal convictions.

In addition, counsel established that our client had no intention to become a US permanent resident by demonstrating his residence and sole-employment in Canada, and showing that our client never attempted to work during his previous stay within the US. Attorney Herman also provided evidence that our client has sufficient funds and resources to subsidize his medical bills and temporary stay, therefore he will not become subject to the reliance on US welfare.

Lastly, Attorney Herman contacted congressional offices in Utah in order to obtain official good moral references and documentation from the medical clinic stating our client’s need for treatment is critical.

By meeting these requirements, our client was approved for B-2 status. Not only was Attorney Herman able to have the USCIS waive the inadmissibility factor due to the inadvertent overstay of visa, but our client was able to continue receiving medical aid from a creditable US medical clinic and potentially save his life.

Panama Citizen Vacates Plea through Effective Counsel

Client: Lawful Permanent Resident
Client’s Country of Origin: Panama
Case Type: Criminal and Removal
Date of Application: August 2010
Date of Approval: February 2019

Our client retained Attorney Frank Krajenke of Herman Legal Group after sitting with a criminal conviction for three years. Our client left Panama and came to the US as a child with lawful permanent resident status. In 2010, he pled guilty to low-level charges arising from a domestic violence issue and was sentenced to complete probation. Nearly three years later, our client fulfilled the court orders but did not anticipate the removal consequences that followed.

Our client consulted with Attorney Krajenke, informing him that he was not advised of immigration consequences that would result from the plea. In addition, our client stated that no interpreter was present at the hearing, he was never told by former counsel that he would be deported and stated he would not have pled otherwise.

In 2013, Herman Legal Group counsel filed a motion to vacate the plea on constitutional grounds of failure of former counsel to advise of immigration consequences. Years had passed, and the opposing counsel sought to dismiss based on the passage of time.

In February 2019, Attorney Krajenke appeared in court and found out that the motion had been denied; however, after spending time speaking to the judge, the judge became receptive to our client’s argument and reversed her initial decision to deny the motion, permitting our counsel to withdraw plea. Furthermore, our client pled to an amended low-level charge without grounds for removal.

While this case required time and patience, the outcome is substantially successful for our client. Not only is it critical to retain an immigration lawyer, but it is also key for lawyers to analyze the courtroom and judge in order to grasp what may be most favorable for their client.

Indian Student Meets Wife on Visa; LPR Granted after Marriage

Client: Nonimmigrant Temporary Visa Holder
Client’s Country of Origin: India
Case Type: I-130 Petition for Alien Relative; Marriage to US Citizen
Date of Application: July 2018
Date of Approval: February 2019

Our client, a citizen of India, was present within the US as an international student. During his study, he met a US citizen woman and fell in love. After some time, the couple united in marriage. The couple then was faced with adjusting our client’s nonimmigrant status, establishing their marital relationship, sponsoring our client for eligibility to become a lawful permanent resident—all before his student visa expires.

The couple consulted with Herman Legal Group counsel at the office located in Buffalo, New York. For timely purposes, they concurrently filed forms I-130 Petition for Alien Relative and I-485 Application to Adjust Status.

They provided a plethora of evidence in order to establish a bona fide marital relationship to avoid any hiccups in the process. Two months later, they were scheduled for their interview with USCIS officials. The couple proceeding to attend the interview and felt confident that all would go well and even brought many supporting documents to show the presiding officer.

Later that year, our clients received documents in the mail requesting more evidence in order to finalize the adjudication of their applications. The USCIS raised the issue that the couple did not supply valid documents regarding our client’s legal divorce in a prior marriage that occurred overseas in India.

The Service provided that, for specific religions, the US Department of State’s Visa Reciprocity Schedule for Indian states that certified copies of divorce decrees of Christian, Hindu, Parsi, and Sikh divorces must be obtained and supplied (for immigration purposes). Furthermore, a certificate from the Kazi, the Muslim religious leader, must be provided to document the divorce that occurred.

The Service basically concluded that because our client’s application did not include this very specific document, his previous marriage was not validly terminated, therefore he did not meet the requirements to show a legally terminated marriage to proceed with his current marital relationship that sponsors his visa application.

A great wave of turmoil engulfed our client: Why was my application denied when my previous marriage was in fact legally terminated? Why wasn’t I asked for this document at my interview? What happens now?

Attorney Richard Herman assisted with the matter—he addressed that our client and counsel were unaware of the specific information regarding the Visa Reciprocity Schedule was necessary to the original filing of the application, therefore it was inadvertently omitted. Attorney Herman also provided that our client had brought this certificate to the initial interview, but did not bring it to the attention of the officer as it was unrequested.

However, we then submitted to the Service a certificate from the Kazi establishing that the prior marriage was terminated under the laws of India. In addition, we also submitted supporting evidence, such as a notarized statement issued from the Kazi attesting to the validity of the certificate as well as an expert statement issued from a licensed attorney in India attesting to the validity of the divorce decree. Overall, our client’s application to adjust status was approved successfully and on time while remaining in legal status.

Green Card Holder Approved for Citizenship Notwithstanding Strict Liability Offense

Client: US Permanent Resident
Client’s Country of Origin: Greece
Case Type: N-400 Application for Naturalization; Voter Registration

Voter registration has become a rising issue for immigration firms and their clients nationwide. While holding permanent resident status in the US, those who are not citizens are unable to register to vote—it is illegal. Furthermore, if a non-US citizen has a record of voting, this act is a strict liability offense and can immediately place him or her in deportation proceedings.

Regardless, BMVs have been registering people despite their status and continue to do so. Many of us observe registration tables set up in high-traffic locations: shopping malls, grocery stores, and other public areas where people convene.

It is likely that representatives at the stands must meet a quota of persons to register, or maybe receive payment per registration. Nevertheless, a simple application or innocent signature obtained by a non-US citizen puts his or her life at a huge risk. Several immigration cases have arisen out of this context, leaving immigration firms and national media at large attention for dealing with this issue.

In this case, our client fell victim to the act. She had been passing through a parking lot of an Illinois shopping mall and was approached by a voting booth representative. Asked if she is registered to vote, our client stated she is not a US citizen.

The representative asked if she is married to a US citizen, and if so, she is able to vote due to that status. Lastly, the representative stated that she would not receive her voter registration card in the mail in the event that she is not a citizen.

Due to these guaranteed statements, our client sincerely believed the representative, and months later, received a voter card in the mail. She was ecstatic in the belief that this meant she is a citizen, that she now has the civic duty to vote, and subsequently voted in the following presidential election.

Later did our client realize, she was incorrectly informed and still needed to apply for citizenship, all the meanwhile she fell significantly ill. After her naturalization interview, records showed that she had voted multiple times.

To her dismay, she was shocked to learn that she had voted more than once. At this point, our client feared her denial of citizenship and even her status living in the States. Attorney Richard Herman of Herman Legal Group assisted her in the following matter. He responded to the USCIS in gathering significant evidence as to why our client’s incident should be excused and why she should be granted citizenship.

First, Attorney Herman provided our client’s affidavit attesting to the false guidance of her eligibility to register to vote. Never did she intend to violate immigration or voting laws, nor did she want to misrepresent herself to the government.

Second, along with providing evidence of our client’s voting history and a termination letter of her registration, Attorney Herman obtained documentation from our client’s doctor regarding her serious illness and the prescribed medications that lead to memory impairment. This evidence would explain why she did not recall voting multiple times. Lastly, our client proves to have good moral character.

Along with no prior criminal record, she is a hard-working and law-abiding person. Throughout her hardships and life setbacks, she volunteers her time to the community and has even started a walk event in order to raise awareness of the rare disease that has affected her life and raise money to fund research.

The USCIS Policy Manual sets forth that when determining naturalization, the officer should consider the totality of the circumstances and weigh all favorable and unfavorable facts of each case.

Attorney Herman argued that in this case, our client’s mistake of voting does not undermine or otherwise adversely affect a good moral character determination for our client’s naturalization. In the end, our client won her case and was granted her official citizenship.