Immigration Consultant sued for negligence

We have recently sued International Chinese Affairs, Inc., aka Jin Shan Hua Ren Fu Wu She, a well known Chinatown immgration consultant outfit, for negligence.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants helped our client to file immigration papers in 2003 and travel document to travel back to China. At that time, our client was out of status for more than 6 months. Our client relied on the advise of the consultant and left the US. She was later found barred for admission to the US for three years. Asa result, her adjustment od status application was denied and her appeal was also dismissed.

This is a tipical case where immigration consultant ruins client's chance to receive immigration benefits. The following is our complaint, which was filed in San Francisco Superior Court last month.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Baughman, SBN 148958
Justin X. Wang, SBN 166183
Trent Goulding, SBN 226245
BAUGHMAN & WANG
111 Pine Street, Suite 1350
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 576-9923
Fax: (415) 576-9929

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Shao Qing Qin



SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION

Shao Qing Qin,

Plaintiff,

vs.


International Chinese Affairs, Inc., dba Kum Sun Chinese Affairs; Does 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES




Jury Requested




Comes now plaintiff Shao Qing Qing, brings the following cause of action against defendants International Chinese Affairs, Inc., dba Kum Sun Chinese Affairs, and Does 1 to 20, inclusive, demands trial by jury to the full extent allowed by law, and alleges as follows:
1. Plaintiff is a competent adult and at all times relevant herein was an individual
residing in the City and County of San Francisco, California.
2. Defendant International Chinese Affairs, Inc. (“ICA”) is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of California, does business under the name Kum Sun Chinese Affairs, and has as its principal place of business the City and County of San Francisco. The acts complained of herein occurred in the City and County of San Francisco.
3. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as
Does 1 through 20, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that these fictitiously named defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that plaintiff’s damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by the fictitiously named defendants’ actions or failures to act.
4. Defendant ICA advertises in the Chinese press that it offers immigration services to members of the public, and ICA does in fact provide such services. Said advertisements are distributed throughout the Bay Area, including in the City and Country of San Francisco.
5. Plaintiff hired ICA to fill out immigration documents on her behalf. ICA then
filled out and filed said documents.
6. Plaintiff asked defendant ICA whether she could go back and visit China without
endangering her immigration status in the United States. ICA made representations to plaintiff that she could apply for Advanced Parole, and ICA thereafter selected and prepare an I-131 form to apply for Advanced Parole on plaintiff’s behalf. In addition, ICA also wrote a letter for plaintiff to accompany her Advanced Parole application.
7. Plaintiff paid a fee of $95 for this service. Her Advance Parole application was
approved by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Following this approval, defendant ICA made representations to plaintiff on two separate occasions that she would be able to visit China without injuring her immigration status in the United States.
8. Relying on defendant ICA’s representations, plaintiff then left the United States
and visited China.
9. Defendant ICA’s representation to plaintiff regarding her ability to visit China
without endangering her immigration status was improper and false. As a direct result of her departure, plaintiff’s attempt to adjust status as the spouse of a U.S. citizen was denied by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), as was her subsequent appeal.
10. As an immigration consultant, defendant ICA owed plaintiff a duty of due care,
which included, among other things, refraining from the unauthorized practice of law and the providing of legal advice to plaintiff. By providing legal advice–which in the event was erroneous– defendant breached this duty to the plaintiff.
11. As a direct and proximate result of defendant ICA’s assurance that she could
leave the U.S. without endangering her immigration status, plaintiff did in fact leave the U.S., thus causing the USCIS to deny her pending adjustment of status application under the Immigration and Naturalization Act section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I).
12. Plaintiff appealed the USCIS’s decision to deny her application, and her appeal
was denied. Following denial of her appeal, plaintiff now faces removal proceedings, which will force her from the United States and her family members living here. Plaintiff has thus suffered extreme emotional distress as a result of being placed in uncertain immigration status.
13. In addition to damage incurred by loss of her immigration status, as a further
direct and legal result of defendant ICA’s negligence, plaintiff has incurred attorney fees in her attempt to remedy the situation caused by defendant’s unlawful practice of law and improper and incorrect legal advice.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that judgment be entered in her favor and against defendant as follows:
1. For general damages, in an amount according to proof;
2. For compensatory damages, in an amount according to proof;
3. For costs of suit herein incurred; and
4. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

Dated: November 28, 2007 Baughman & Wang


By
Trent Goulding
Attorneys for Plaintiff