The Case presents an interesting set of issues having to do with the change country conditions in Iran and the plight of Iranian people in the Islamic Republic.
Immigration Success Stories USA
This Firm has built its reputation on handling difficult and complex cases in the area of immigration law. Our attorneys approach each case in a straightforward and analytical way. We analyze every fact in great detail, and rely on our vast knowledge of federal statutes, regulations, and immigration case law to get the best possible results for our clients. The following is a small sample of the notable immigration cases our attorneys have handled. We have provided these cases on our website so our potential clients can see examples of the immigration cases our firm has handled in the past. The results below demonstrate the level of representation our Firm strives to provide to our clients in a variety of immigration cases. We have provided PDF versions of some decisions. However, we redacted some of them to preserve our clients’ confidentiality when the cases were not a matter of public record.
DISCLAIMER: Please be advised the results achieved in the cases mentioned below depend upon the exact facts and circumstances of that particular case. It is important to keep in mind that since no two cases are exactly the same, The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC cannot guarantee a specific result in any legal matter. Any results included on our website is based upon actual legal matters and represents the results achieved in that particular matter, and does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or forecast of the outcome of any other legal matters regardless of how similar your situation may appear.
Material Support to a Terrorist Organization is a serious finding which if made, would render the individual subject to it ineligible for asylum and adjustment of status. There are some exceptions to this rule which were not previously available. This is one of the cases granted under the exception.
Administrative Appeals Office today overturned the decision by the USCIS District Director and found that the Director made improper assessment of the evidence including giving diminishing wait to the statement by the grandmother of the petitioner as well as looking at each piece of evidence separately as opposed to applying totality of the credible evidence standard.
This is an interesting case. The IJ made several rather arbitrary findings, which the BIA agreed were not supported by the record. In assessing credibility, the IJ relied heavily on his own opinions and not the evidence in the record. Appeal sustained. Congratulations go to our entire team including Wendy R. Barlow who handled the appeal and Alexander J. Segal who handled the trial stage.
This case involves an asylum applicant from Belarus whom the IJ found lacking credibility based on ostensible discrepancies not supported by the record. The Board of Immigration Appeals disagreed, finding the record not to be developed to support the IJ's negative credibility finding. The BIA also found that the IJ failed to provide an opportunity to the respondent to rebut the ostensible discrepancies; review ample corroborative evidence submitted by the respondent as well as adequately review the pattern and practice theory of persecution.
An interesting decision we just received from the BIA. The decision addresses legal requirement of filing of an asylum application within the applicant's first year of the last arrival in the USA and also clarifies the extent of mistreatment to constitute persecution. The Board agreed with the applicants' argument that the mistreatment he was subjected to in Belarus did amount to persecution, thus overruling the holding by the Immigration Judge. The BIA disagreed with the applicant that debilitating treatment by the Belarus government of his similarly situated friend, which sparked the applicant's fear of returning to Belarus several years after his arrival in the USA, and the temporary loss of memory by the friend, which resulted directly form that mistreatment, was not sufficient exceptional circumstance to excuse late filing of the asylum application by the applicant. One of the BIA members dissented from the majority opinion and agreed with the applicant that his circumstances did amount to exceptional and warranted waiver of the one-year filing requirement.
The waiver application and application for permission to reapply for admission were both denied by the Field Office Director, Moscow, Russia, and ended on Appeal before the Administrative Appeals Office at the DHS. The appeal will be sustained and waiver granted with instructions to the post to adjudicate immigrant visa application
The Field Office Director, New Delhi, India, denied the waiver application. The applicant, through counsel, appealed the Field Office Director's decision, and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal. On May 6, 2013, the applicant filed a motion to reopen and reconsider the AAO's decision in accordance with 8 c.F.R. § 103.5. The motion is granted, the prior AAO decision is withdrawn and the underlying appeal is sustained.
The Field Office Director, Bangkok, Thailand, denied the waiver application. The applicant, through counsel, appealed the Field Office Director's decision, and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal. On May 6, 2013, the applicant filed a motion to reopen and reconsider the AAO's decision in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. The motion is granted, the prior AAO decision is withdrawn and the underlying appeal is sustained.
This case involved an Immigration Judge who found that the applicant for asylum was not credible because he failed to provide corroborative evidence of his account of the events. On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals disagreed, concluding that the Immigration Judge failed to ground her findings in the record and that the record supported quite an opposing finding.
An interesting case that concerns the issue of whether an individual against whom an immigration judge issued a negative credibility finding is precluded from making a successful argument of material change in country conditions, which would justify a second look at the existence of a well-founded fear of persecution on account of political activities that took place in the period after the immigration judge order as well on the fact of significantly increased persecution of the similarly situated individuals in the country of origin, in this case Belarus.
Represented the Petitioner only before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Petitioner appealed to the Court the BIA affirmance without opinion of the denial by an immigration judge of his request to continue removal proceedings. Petitioner needed more time to allow the US Department of Labor to adjudicate his previously filed labor certification application. The Court held that it did not constitute an abuse of discretion for an IJ to decline to grant multiple continuances in order to permit adjudication of a removable alien's pending labor certification. The Court was particularly swayed by the fact that the IJ had previously granted the petitioner many continuances in the past as well as the need to move the case along. The court found no merits in the Petitioner’s argument that, he, the petitioner, did not control the Labor Department’s adjudication process and timeline and could not predict when the petition would be adjudicated. The Court held that labor certification was just a beginning in a long process of legalization so that the Court could not find fault with the IJ who refused to give the Petitioner more time. It is interesting that in a similar case some time later in 2010, the Second Circuit reversed its course and remanded the case when the IJ denied continuance. It seems as if the Court was struggling to set boundaries of when IJ's refusal to continue removal hearing would interfere with the noncitizen's rights to a fair hearing in removal proceedings or otherwise constitute arbitrary and capricious act on the part of an IJ.
Reversal of the BIA decision in part where the Board agreed with the IJ's finding that the mistreatment the petitioner complained about did not constitute persecution. Sustaining the BIA decision in part where the Board reversed the original negative creditability finding by an Immigration Judge on the grounds that it did not rely on a specific and cogent reason needed to sustain negative credibility determination.
The case addressed the issue of “on account of” in the context of an application for asylum. The issue was whether the original analysis by the IJ complied with that spelled out by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the holding of Yeuging Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F. 3d 540 (2nd Cir 2005) in making a determination of whether the harm of which the applicant for asylum complained, had been on account of one of the protected grounds under the Immigration and Nationality Act (The INA).
The case revisited Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) and the extended definition of a child, it presented. The case addressed the contention by the DHS that an individual who was originally included in the parents asylum application as a child as thus qualified for an extended definition of a child under the CSPA, lost such protection once he was married and did not regain it once he was divorced. The DHS contended that the protection could not be regained after the divorce even if both the marriage and the divorce happened prior to the individual parents' being granted asylum. American Immigration Law Foundation filed an amicus brief in this case. See ALIF's annual report for 2005, page 9.