Immigration Success Stories USA

Immigration Judge decision on a case remanded by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The decision comes on my request to terminate removal proceedings due to favorable applicable recent circuit court decisions that changed the law as applied to my client.

We recently represented an independent Russian journalist who was seeking asylum in removal proceedings. In Russia, he ran a website dedicated to covering official corruption and human rights violations in Russia. In order to ensure that readers could trust the information, he made his contact information readily available. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this brought the client to the attention of the very Russian officials whose corruption he was exposing. He was subjected to several threats in Russia by persons he credibly believed to be acting on behalf of the Russian government, and on one occasion he was violently assaulted at a peaceful meeting wherein he and other participants discussed their reporting.

We knew that we had a strong case to present to the immigration court, but we had to ensure that all the facts were in order. We started with the client’s powerful personal statement, wherein he clearly and credibly explained the work he was engaged in while reporting in Russia, the threats he and his family received, and why he ultimately decided that he had to flee for his life. We supplemented his personal statement with extensive evidence about country conditions in Russia relating to journalists who work to expose government corruption and human rights violations.

As a threshold matter, we had to navigate one issue in the case, the requirement that an alien must generally apply for asylum within one year of his or her entry. In this case, the client applied for asylum a few months outside of that one-year period. However, after reviewing his case file, we found that the client was covered by a district court decision in Mendez Rojas v. Johnson, No 16-1024, 2017 WL 1397749 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 10, 2017), because the DHS had not notified him of the one-year filing requirement for asylum before releasing him from immigration custody. Due to his class membership, the client’s asylum application was deemed timely.

Regarding the asylum claim proper, we made the case that the death threats made against the client in conjunction with the one violent assault he had suffered rose to the level of past persecution. The past persecution question is significant in that if the immigration judge finds past persecution, the asylum applicant is entitled to the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution on the same basis. However, we did not take it for granted that the immigration judge would agree that the past harm rose to the level of persecution, and we thus argued in the alternative that, regardless of the past persecution question, the facts established that the client had a well-founded fear of future persecution. Fortunately, our second argument proved to be unnecessary because the immigration judge agreed with us that the client had suffered past persecution.

Based on the client’s testimony and other evidence, we were able to establish to the satisfaction of the immigration judge that the Russian government was behind the targeting of the client. Cases from countries in Russia and the former Soviet Union can be tricky on this point, for government officials may use third parties to harass their targets, or their own agents may refrain from identifying themselves as such. Having shown that the client was targeted by persons acting on behalf of the Russian government, we were able to also successfully argue that the client would not be able to avoid future persecution by internally relocating within Russia.

Next, we had to prove that the persecution was inflicted on a “protected ground.” We made the case that the client was targeted for his political opinion. The immigration judge agreed with our view, which was supported by ample evidence in the record and in the client’s own personal statement, that the Russian government targeted him on account of his political opinions.

Reporting official misconduct in oppressive countries such as Russia requires great courage. Our client put his life on the line to make the truth available. It was our privilege to do our part to help him win asylum – which he richly deserved – here in the United States.

Respondent here complained he had fear of returning to Uzbekistan on account of one of the protected grounds. Judge found against him and erred in allowing the Government not to rebut the presumption of future persecution established by the respondent having been able to establish past persecution. This appeal followed. While the Board agreed with the judge on the decision on CAT claim, more interestingly here, it agreed with the respondent on the presumption rebuttal issue.

We recently accepted a client who had a peculiarly perplexing problem. She had been in the United States on O-1B nonimmigrant status as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts since 2013. In 2018, she had an I-140 approved for preference classification as an EB-1A alien of extraordinary ability in the arts based on the same work that she had been doing as a nonimmigrant.

In order for her to be able to adjust her status without having to proceed abroad to apply for a visa, the client needed to have her O-1 status extended one more time. However, the USCIS issued her and her prior attorney a second Request for Evidence instead of granting her petition. She found this odd. Not only had the USCIS extended her O-1 status on several occasions, it had also just approved her request for the more stringent immigrant classification based on her same work and achievements.

The client turned to The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal for assistance in handling the Request for Evidence related to her O-1 extension request. Having handled many employment-based cases, we knew that once USCIS issues a Request for Evidence and articulates grounds on which it may be inclined to deny a petition, it can be difficult to change the agency’s mind.

We carefully studied the USCIS’s lengthy Request for Evidence. After our review, we adopted a three-pronged strategy for overcoming the Request for Evidence. The strategy involved rejecting certain erroneous assertions by the USCIS, submitting additional evidence to clarify key points, and highlighting that the USCIS appeared to be adopting different reasoning in the Request for Evidence than it had applied to her previous petitions.

First, we identified one point regarding the client’s work since her previous O-1 approval that the USCIS had misconstrued. The USCIS suggested that she had claimed that one of her jobs was grander than what she actually claimed, and then found that the evidence she submitted did not establish a claim that she had not made. We took the time to explain what the client actually did and why it was supported by the evidence and, thus, supported her petition. Furthermore, we disagreed with the USCIS’s position that other professional assignments that it did not expressly misconstrue were nevertheless insufficient to establish the client’s eligibility for O-1 classification. We carefully described each of her work assignments and explained why the USCIS was wrong to minimize their significance.

Second, the USCIS expressed concerns about certain employment that she had engaged in after the expiration of her prior O-1 approval. In order for the employment to have been legal, she needed to have entered into an employment agreement prior to that date. After assessing her case, we found that her employment did not violate her status, but that the initial letters she had submitted left some room for ambiguity. We worked with the client to obtain new letters from the employers in question clarifying the nature and timing of her employment.

Third and finally, we repeatedly reminded the USCIS that it had, on multiple occasions, extended the client’s O-1 status for the same work, and that it had just recently granted her immigrant visa petition on the same basis. While the approval of one request does not guarantee the approval of another, it was quite clear that, if anything, the client became more qualified for extraordinary ability classification as she had accrued career accomplishments.

After reviewing our response, the USCIS agreed and granted the client’s Form I-129 petition to extend her O-1 status, thus allowing her to pursue adjustment of status on the basis of her approved Form I-140. It was our privilege to help a talented individual on her path to becoming a lawful permanent resident and continuing to ply her trade in the United States. This case highlights the importance of not panicking when the Government does something peculiar, but instead carefully examining the Government’s rationale and addressing it point-by-point.

I-129 petition is granted on behalf of an extraordinary ballet dancer and ballet teacher from Russia to allow her to work in the USA teaching ballet at the well-established chain of ballet dance schools.