Asylum granted after 7 years

Client filed asylum in 2001 shortly after her arrival. She did not have her passport and I-94, which were the main reasons the Asylum Office denied her application as it did not believe she entered the US in 2001. Her case was transferred from LA to San Francisco, after she moved to the Bay Area. An LA attorney represented her in the removal hearing. Immigration judge again denied relief and ordered her removal, due in large part, to her inability to show she entered the US in 2001.

We took the case from that point and appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Through our work, we found evidence of client's 2001 entry and won the appeal. The case was remanded from the Board and the Board also criticized judge's incorrect standard in finding her not credible.

After the remand, client unfortunately committed a crime, which caused the government to question at her hearing if she is eligible for asylum and trying to cast doubt on her credibility.

We successfully argued at her hearings(yes hearings as this case lasted for more than two years because the court and the government continued the case several times) that our client was credible and her crime did not change her eligibility for asylum. ICE counsel's attempt on cross to question her asylum claim and the crime, their attempt to use the police report to impeach our client, and their yet another motion to continue the hearing in order to get criminal court proceeding transcript were all successfully objected by us.

Man naturalized after 7 year immigration court battle

Mr. Fu was put in deportation proceeding in 2000 at his N-400 interview after the INS found that he failed to disclose in his 1995 visa interview the fact that his father, petitioner for his immigration, had died in 1993. Under the law, if petitioner is deceased, the approved petition is automatically revoked by the operation of the law. INS alleged fraud in obtaining immigrant visa. Later INS changed the charge to entry without a valid visa under section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the INA.

The case was tried before San Francisco immigration judge Robert Yeargin in 2005. Mr. Fu applied for a waiver under section 237(a)(1)(H) of the INA. The government argued that because Mr. Fu was not charged with fraud, he was not eligible for waiver under this section. Judge Yeargin agreed with the government and denied Mr. Fu's waiver application.

Upon appeal, the BIA found that section 237(a)(1)(H) of the INA "is best interpreted as authorizing a waiver of removability under section 237(a)(1)(A) based on charges of inadmissibility at the time of entry under section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Act, as well as under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i), where there was a misrepresentation made at the time of admission, whether innocent or not". 23 I&N Dec. 985(BIA 2006), Interim Decision 3539(published). Under this interpretation, Mr. Fu is found eligible for a waiver and the case was remanded for the judge to consider the waiver.

Upon remand, judge Yeargin granted relief and Mr. Fu received his green card back. We advised Mr. Fu to file N-400 in June, 2007. Mr. Fu just received his oath ceremony notice and he will take the oath on December 4, 2007.

BIA decision in this case was published and is a precedent binding on all similar cases in the United States.

To view the BIA decision, please go to the following link.
http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol23/3539.pdf