After one of our Mexican clients learned that someone had been monitoring his activities and plotting to kidnap his children, he decided to leave Mexico for the Unites States.  He runs a very successful company in Mexico, so to this was a difficult decision.  He contacted us to determine which immigrant visa would be best for his family. He would continue to direct his Mexican business from the United States so had no interest in setting up another company here. For this reason,  neither the E2 nor the L1A visas were viable options. After consulting with us, this investor felt that the EB-5 investment program, designed to increase the flow of foreign capital into and create jobs in the United States was the best option as this program would allow him to immigrate to the United States and obtain green cards for him and for his family members. We introduced him to several projects that were available.  He chose a hotel project which was already under construction in the Mississippi Development Regional Center. We prepared and submitted his petition in July 2011 and in March, 2012, USCIS approved the petition.  The petition approval took about 7 months which is, at this moment, the standard processing time.

If you are interested in learning more about the EB-5 Visa program, please contact me at (305) 539 726 or jferguson@carltonfields.com

Maria and her family members fled Venezuela in 2006 after supporters of President Chavez attacked her and issued death threats due to her active involvement with the political opposition.  When Maria and her family members arrived in the United States they were placed in removal proceedings.  We filed an application for political asylum on her behalf and the immigration judge granted the application. To the family’s dismay, the Department of Homeland Security appealed the judge’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals.  The case languished on appeal for more than four years.  The family remained in limbo, constantly fearing that the grant of their asylum would be overturned. In June 2011, the Department of Homeland Security issued a memorandum giving its attorneys and agents wide discretion and latitude in deciding how to proceed in certain immigration matters.  It gave DHS attorneys the power, within certain parameters, to decide whether to initiate removal proceeindgs, to close removal proceedings, to grant relief, or to appeal.  The memo stated that its agents could exercise discretion at any level of proceedings.  After reading the memo, we wrote to the attorneys at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and requested that they voluntarily withdraw their appeal of the Burges’ case which was still pending with the Board.  The ICE attorneys agreed that justice delayed was justice denied and they withdrew the appeal. Today, the Maria and her family can finally move on with their lives knowing that their asylee status is secure.

Osvaldo hired our office to represent him in removal proceedings.  He is a longtime permanent resident who faced deportation due to a conviction for false imprisonment. At his first hearing  in immigration court, our office moved to terminate proceedings on the grounds that Osvaldo’s conviction for false imprisonment was not a “crime of moral turpitude” and that he, therefore, was not removable as charged.  The immigration judge denied our motion and ordered us to move forward with removal proceedings.  In so holding, the she agreed that the crime was not “categorically” a crime of moral turpitude, but she allowed into evidence (over our objection) Osvaldo’s arrest report and concluded that, based on the arrest report, the crime involved moral turpitude. We filed an interlocutory appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals but the Board declined to hear the appeal. In the interim, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision (Sanchez Fajardo v. US Atty Gen) confirming what we had argued at the outset. On facts very similar to those in our case, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that a Florida conviction for false imprisonment does not constitute a crime involving moral turpitude under the categorical or modified categorical approach.  It also ruled that arrest reports and other extrinsic evidence outside the record may not be considered in making such determinations. We renewed our motion to terminate before the immigration judge and this time she granted.  She terminated Osvaldo’s removal proceedings and he can now live his life without fear of deportation.

Ramon and David worked for affiliated companies in Venezuela that are involved in wholesale and retail sales of heavy machinery and equipment used in the mining, construction, cargo and agricultural industries.  The foreign parent opened an affiliate company in the United States. The parent company wanted to transfer Ramon to the U.S. to serve the new company in the position of CEO and David as the Operations Manager. Our office prepared and filed L-1 visa petitions for the US company on behalf of Ramon and David. The petitions were identical except for the job description and the prior work history for each; the company information and supporting documentation were identical.  Because the company needed Ramon and David’s services immediately, we filed under the premium processing program. In ten days, we received a decision approving Ramon’s L-1 visa application; USCIS did not request any additional documentation.  A few days later, we received a burdensome request for additional evidence for David’s L-1 visa petition.   In response, we submitted hundreds of documents regarding the operations and staffing of the U.S. company.  USCIS eventually approved the petition.  Our client was upset however, as were we, due to the delay and expense involved in responding to the unnecessary request for additional evidence.  We were baffled how the same agency could handle two nearly identical petitions in such disparate fashion.  We forwarded the two petitions and the Request for Evidence to the American Immigration Lawyer’s Association (AILA) as AILA frequently meets with USCIS management to discuss problems in adjudication.  AILA has since advised that it will be these decisions in discussions with USCIS examples of the types of inconsistent and inappropriate adjudications that the agency is issuing. We are pleased that the petitions were eventually approved, and that they may serve as a vehicle for improving the quality of USCIS adjudications.

Jose and his wife, Gloria, came to our office after meeting with a number of immigration attorneys in several cities. Jose wanted to naturalize, but had been told by other attorneys that his application would not be approved and that he risked being put in removal proceedings because he had spent significant amounts of time outside the United States since obtaining his lawful permanent residency.   This was due to the fact that, after he obtained residency, his wife (a United States citizen) took an excellent position as legal counsel for a company based in Switzerland.   Jose commuted from the United States and Europe to be with his wife.  Until he obtained citizenship, he could not spend significant amounts of time in Switzerland because he had to meet certain physical presence requirements to maintain his US residency.  After hearing the couple’s circumstances, commuting halfway around the world to be with one another, we told them that we felt confident that Jose’s application for U.S. citizenship could be approved if we provided sufficient documentation of Jose’s tie to the United States to prove that at no time had he abandoned, nor did he intend to abandon his permanent residency in the United States.  At Jose’s citizenship interview, we presented hundreds of pages of evidence of Jose’s tie to the United States for the past five years:  U.S. bank accounts, cell phone bills, credit card bills, and property records among others.  USCIS took the case under advisement for more than four months.  We found the delay to be unreasonable and advised the local field office that we would file a petition for writ of mandamus in federal court if it did not timely decide the application. Finally, after six months of waiting, USCIS approved and scheduled him to be sworn in as a citizen. Although there was a chance that Jose’s application would be denied, we felt that the benefit to Jose and his wife if it were approved was well worth the risk.  Today, Jose is a U.S. citizen and plans to relocate, at least temporarily, to Switzerland so that he and his wife can be together.

Sofia last entered the United States with her husband Carlos in 1993.   The couple crossed the U.S.-Mexican border at an international bridge which had an immigration checkpoint.   Sofia had crossed the border on countless occasions in her life using a border crossing card that she had ever since she was a little girl growing up near the Mexican border.    The couple casually walked across the bridge and a Customs and Border Patrol officer waved them into the United States, but did not physically inspect their documentation or record their entry.   

Nearly two decades later, the couple’s son, who was born a U.S. citizen in Florida, turned 21 years old and filed an I-130 family petition so that his mother and father could become residents.   We attended the mother’s residency interview at the Orlando Field Office where she recounted to the USCIS officer the story of her crossing the Mexican border at the border patrol checkpoint.   We presented a legal argument explaining why her manner of entry was considered legal for the purposes of obtaining her residency.   USCIS agreed with our analysis and approved her case, granting her lawful permanent resident status.

Roberto came to the United States from Venezuela when he was five years old on a tourist visa with his family.  He grew up in Orlando, Florida like any other little boy, with one exception:   Roberto had no legal immigration status.   When Roberto was 25 years old, he was arrested for driving without a license and the police claimed to have found drugs in his car during the subsequent search; they charged him with drug possession.   Scared and without money to hire a private lawyer, Roberto plead guilty to the drug charges.  After his criminal court proceedings, he was transferred to an immigration detention center to begin deportation proceedings.

 Roberto’s family called our office to see if there was anything we could do to help get Roberto out of detention.  His mother was suffering from kidney failure and Roberto was a potential transplant donor. We believed we could make a strong argument that he merited Cancellation of Removal at his removal proceedings.  Through creative lawyer and a highly technical legal argument, our office was able to get Roberto released from detention on bond.   A few months later, Roberto’s drug conviction was vacated by the state prosecutors when lab test results demonstrated without a doubt the substance found in Roberto’s car was not drugs at all.   While awaiting his removal proceedings, Roberto married his girlfriend Teresa, changing the strategy of the case.   Our office filed a marriage petition for Roberto and his wife immediately.   Once the marriage petition was approved, we filed an application for Roberto’s residency status with the judge.   Because Roberto’s conviction had been vacated and he entered the U.S. legally, he was able to easily obtain his residency in court at his individual hearing.   After being in the U.S. for 22 years without legal status, Roberto finally earned a right to live permanently in the country that has been his home since he was five years old.

Congratulations to Sacha Josephau for the approval of his O-1 visa as an alien of extraordinary ability.  Sacha is a French hairstylist and makeup artist who has provided hair and makeup services for the world renowned Paris Opera Ballet and the cover of Vogue Magazine, one of the world’s most popular fashion publications.  Sacha has also provided his hair and makeup services to actors in acclaimed movies and television series seen all around the globe.  Sacha performs his extraordinary services at the Jean Claude Biguine salon at 777 Brickell Avenue.

Our office recently attended a very special naturalization interview with our client, Liliana, a long-time permanent resident of the United States.    Liliana has been a resident of the U.S. since 1980, but had never filed for citizenship because she had been living abroad most of the time since becoming a resident.   Her husband has been employed overseas as an engineer for an American company who works in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers on a variety of projects in Honduras.    The couple has been residing in Honduras for more than 25 years.   

Our office assisted Liliana in filing an application for naturalization under Section 319(b) of the Immigration & Nationality Act.   This provision waives the physical presence and continuous residence requirements for residents who live with a spouse who is employed abroad by the U.S. government or a U.S. company who engages in the development of foreign trade and commerce.    Liliana’s case fit squarely within this provision.  On the day of her naturalization interview, after Liliana passed her English and Civics examinations, we were surprised when a supervisor appeared and told us he would administer the citizenship oath and make Liliana a U.S. citizen that very same day.   This was unusual as naturalization applicants generally must return on a different day to attend the naturalization oath ceremony, oftentimes weeks or months after the interview.    In contrast, this special provision of law requires that USCIS administer the citizenship oath immediately after the interview and examination.   The supervisor brought Liliana back to his office and we witnessed as she pledged her oath of allegiance to our country and walked out with her certificate of naturalization in hand.   It was truly an amazing experience to be a part of!

In Absentia Deportation Order Re-Opened and Case Terminated for Residency Application

Maria first came to the United States from Peru in 1991, fleeing persecution at the hands of the notorious Peruvian guerrilla group, the Shining Path.    Both of her sisters also fled Peru around the same time, fearing for their lives at the hands of rebel forces.    Maria timely filed an application for political asylum and attended many court hearings and interviews over the course of a decade pursuing her asylum application.   In the meantime, one of Maria’s sisters was granted asylum based on factual circumstances similar to her own.  

In 2004, Maria was ordered deported in her absence for failing to attend her final hearing in front of the immigration judge.   Maria had previously attended seven other immigration hearings without fail.   Unfortunately, the date of final hearing was re-set by the judge with notice served upon Maria’s former attorney only.   The attorney failed to notify Maria of the change in date and neither Maria nor her prior attorney appeared at the hearing and the immigration judge ordered her deported in her absence.   Maria and her prior attorney immediately attempted to re-open her case, but to no avail.   About one year later, Maria’s former attorney was disbarred from the Florida Bar for her systematic poor performance and neglect of her clients’ cases.   

In 2010, Maria came to our office to seek help in legalizing her immigration status, six years after being ordered deported and after spending tens of thousands of dollars with other immigration attorneys trying to rectify her case.   Fortunately, her sister who had won asylum nearly 20 years ago had become a U.S. citizen and filed a family petition for Maria which was approved.   After waiting ten years for a visa number to become available as the sister of a U.S. citizen, Maria was finally eligible to become a resident.   The only thing stopping her from obtaining her residency was her prior order of deportation.  

After reviewing Maria’s file, our office determined that it would be possible to file a Motion to Reopen her deportation proceedings due to the fact that Maria did not have proper notice of the date of her final court hearing at the time she was ordered deported.   We knew it would be a long shot, but it was one of the only chances Maria had of becoming a resident in the U.S. without having to depart to Peru.

A few months after filing the motion, we received an order from the immigration judge notifying us that he was granting Maria’s Motion to Reopen.   Maria was then scheduled for a Master Calendar Hearing this June.    At the Master Calendar Hearing, we convinced the judge and the government attorney to agree to terminate Maria’s case to allow her to file her residency application directly with USCIS.  

Maria no longer has an order of deportation against her and she is not in deportation proceedings.    Maria is free to file her residency application like any other applicant.   Her family is ecstatic that after 20 years of being in the United States, Maria finally has the opportunity to become a resident.   Maria has devoted her life in the United States to helping special needs children in her work as a special education teacher and coach for the Special Olympics, and we cannot think of a better ending for a more deserving person.   Congratulations to Maria and her family!