Late last week, our office received the DHS Office of Chief Counsel's response to our motion to reopen, based on ineffective assistance of counsel in our Korean family's case. In a surprise to me, the local ACC (Assistant Chief Counsel) did not object to the reopening for the wife's motion, as she was not involved in the underlying fraud by Leland Sustaire at the USCIS San Jose Field Office.
This was welcome news as she has two minor children, born in the US, who can now stay with their mother in the US, if the BIA agrees to reopen and remand to the Immigration Court. We still have a good faith argument for the father, however, the ACC did object.
5 comments:
Can you please update on this case if there is any?
The Board of Immigration Appeals granted our motion to reopen for the spouse and denied the motion to reopen for the husband.
The wife's removal case has been remanded back to the San Francisco EOIR for further proceedings before Immigration Judge Murry next month.
We will be seeking a waiver for the spouse and reinstate her LPR status.
Judge Murry still reviews these cases? on what base will she get reinstated as LPR? does she have any petition filed under her name?
Thank you for your reply
Yes, Immigration Judge Murry still handles all of these Sustaire Cases. In fact, our client has already had her "Green Card" reinstated based upon a Waiver under INA section 237 and we have filed an N-400 Naturalization Application so that she can file an I-130 Visa Petition for her husband.
DHS has agreed to a stay so that we can have her naturalized shortly.
Post a Comment