HIGH PROFILE CASES
BOOK YOUR FREE IMMIGRATION CONSULTATION
Cut down on your waiting time, simply book your Free Consultation appointment online.
Private Immigration Bill: The Lozano Siblings
It was perhaps because of this passion, that the very first case I took on was that of the Lozano siblings. In 1997, I read an article in the Los Angeles times about 3 siblings. Fauricio, Sergio and Ana Lozano, from El Salvador, who had arrived in Los Angeles and had been apprehended at the airport as being here without the necessary documentation. They had been part of their mother’s application, to reside permanently in the United States, which was filed for by the youngsters’ grandmother. However, prior to the family’s arrival here, their mother Ana Ruth died in El Salvador after receiving a visa for her and her three teenagers; something they had waited 8 years. Their grandmother Zoila Lozano brought the teens home to LA where they were told by the immigration authorities that the visa was cancelled with their mother’s death and that they had to return to El Salvador where only their abusive father remained.
I represented this family on a pro bono basis, which means at no cost. Although the younger children could obtain benefits if they were found eligible under the Special Juvenile Immigrant category, after they were made wards of the children’s court, the older brother was already over 18, and could not meet the eligibility requirement due to that. The 2 younger siblings eventually, and after much hard work, obtained their permanent residency through the Special Juvenile Status, but for Sergio, the only remaining possibility was a “private bill”. In other words, a law that would apply to only him, granting him permanent residency. This private bill was proposed by senator Diane Feinstein in 2000 and soon thereafter, Sergio was a permanent resident of the United States. Obtaining this was one of the most memorable days for me as a lawyer, and it happened so early in my career.
Read the full text of the Lozano bill HERE.
Some Of Our Immigration Cases At The 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals
We have won many appeals cases, but these cases became precedents in asylum law at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
MORALES ALEGRIA v. GONZALES 9th. Circuit Court of Appeals June 6, 2006
9th. Circuit precedent case
Decided by a panel of the Ninth Circuit on June 06, 2006. Petitioner sought review of a BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from a finding of an IJ that his conviction for the offense of forgery under California Penal Code section 476 rendered him removable as an aggravated felon under section 101(a)(43)(R). At issue in this finding was whether section 476 statutory requirements were broader than those of the immigration statute. The Court found that section 476 does require knowledge of the fictitious nature of the instrument, and therefore, it is not broader than the federal definition of “offense relating to…forgery” for purposes of qualifying as an “aggravated felony”.
Read this case in full HERE.
BAGHDASARYAN v. HOLDER 9th. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 05-72416. January 13, 2010
9th. Circuit precedent case
Armen Baghdasaryan (“Baghdasaryan”) is a native and citizen of Armenia. Baghdasariyan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Baghdasaryan was threatened, harassed, fined, detained, and beaten because he opposed the systemic government corruption, including the extortion of bribes, perpetrated by General H. Hakopian, a powerful politician and government official. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition in part and remand.
The BIA found Baghdasaryan to be credible. Accordingly, we must accept Baghdasaryan’s testimony as true. See Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Testimony must be accepted as true in the absence of an explicit adverse credibility finding.”).
In Armenia, Baghdasaryan operated a small business making and distributing audio tapes from his home. In September 1995, Baghdasaryan moved his business to a store in a local market owned by General Hakopian, a well-known general at the Ministry of Defense, who later became a deputy of the National Assembly. The market was similar to a swap meet, with hundreds of vendors selling items in a large area. Baghdasaryan obtained the proper permit to sell his goods, paid tax on his sales, and remitted rent to General Hakopian for use of his space in the market. The record does not show whether General Hakopian was entitled to keep the entire amount of rent payments for himself.
One month later, Samvel Hakopian (“Samvel”), General Hakopian’s nephew, and several other men came to Baghdasaryan’s store and demanded $100 per month on behalf of the General, in addition to rent. Baghdasaryan refused to pay and filed a written complaint against General Hakopian with a local judge. When Baghdasaryan received a second visit from Samvel demanding money on General Hakopian’s behalf, he followed up on his judicial complaint. Shortly thereafter, Baghdasaryan was arrested and fined $100 by the tax authority for working without a license that no other vendor was required to have. Baghdasaryan could only operate his business if he paid a monthly $100 “surcharge” to the tax authority. Baghdasaryan eventually received the license after paying a $500 bribe.
Read this case in full HERE.
MINASYAN v. MUKASEY 9th. Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 06-73192 January 20, 2009
9th.Circuit precedent case
Petition for review of a denial of asylum is granted where the year within which an alien seeking asylum must file an application begins the day after the alien arrives in the U.S., thus petitioner’s application was timely.
Read this case in full HERE.
Check Out Our Immigration Lawyers' Reviews
Telephone:
+1-818-382-3333
+1-949-272-1199
WhatsApp:
+1-818-489-3322
Our Office Locations:
18751 Ventura Blvd. Suite #200 Tarzana, CA 91356
Orange County:
300 Spectrum Center Dr #400, Irvine, CA 92618
By accessing and using the sedaghatlaw.com website, you acknowledge and agree that the content provided herein is for general informational and educational purposes only and is not intended to be legal advice for any specific situation or case. The information on this site should not be construed as legal advice nor does it constitute an attorney-client relationship between you and any attorney associated with sedaghatlaw.com. Each legal situation is unique, and laws are constantly changing; therefore, visitors are encouraged to seek professional legal counsel for any legal matters or concerns. Your use of the site and its information is solely at your own risk. Sedaghatlaw.com, its affiliates, contributors, agents, or any other parties involved in the creation, production, or delivery of the content herein disclaim all liability for any damages, losses, or actions resulting from your access to, or reliance on, any information contained within the site or any linked external resources. No attorney-client relationship is formed by your use of this site, by your sending us an email, or by us responding to any email you send us. An attorney-client relationship can only be established through mutual agreement in a formal, written engagement letter between you and an attorney. By continuing to use sedaghatlaw.com, you acknowledge that you have read, understood, and agreed to these terms.