The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC is an immigration law firm based in New York. Our firm consists of experienced United States immigration lawyers dedicated to assisting individuals and businesses navigate the tangle of United States immigration laws. Our office is located in Manhattan, New York, but we handle immigration matters throughout the United States. Our firm’s objective is to provide you with personalized attention and professional service toward achieving your immigration goals.
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.
Outcome: Reversal by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals of the USDOJ's denial of asylum. Case remanded for a new hearing
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.
Outcome: BIA decision is vacated on Stipulation. Remanded back to the IJ for a new hearing
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).
Outcome: Remanded to the BIA and eventually to the Immigration Judge. Full reversal of the original DHS's position
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.
You can schedule a consultation with us on Skype, over the phone, or in person by using our “Online Consultation” form. Our fee is only $260 per up to 45 minutes for all consultations regardless of the topic.
27 Whitehall Street, 5th Fl New York, NY. 10004
Attorney Advertising: prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
