Source: http://igbanugolaw.com/general-immigration-law/appeals/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 03:01:28+00:00

Document:
We have filed hundreds of appeals before the Board of Immigration Appeals and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, with much success and many positive outcomes. We appeal negative decisions from the Immigration Courts (Executive Office for Immigration Review), the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (U.S. CIS) and the Department of State. As part of our appellate work, we prepare motions for stay of removal to help you remain in the United States during the appeals process. We also pursue post-conviction relief for clients with criminal convictions that cause them to be removable, inadmissible, or ineligible for relief from removal.
Representative CasesAhmadshah v. Ashcroft , 396 F. 3d 917 (8th Cir. 2005). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the order denying asylum and remanded the case to the Immigration Court for further proceedings. The Court noted that Ahmadshah offered evidence to show that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in Afghanistan on account of his Christianity. Upon remand, the Immigration Court granted asylum to Ahmadshah.
Muhur v. Ashcroft , 355 F. 3d 958 (7th Cir. 2004). The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the order denying asylum and remanded the case to the Immigration Court for further proceedings. The Court held that Muhur is entitled to asylum on the basis of religious persecution even if she could escape the persecutors’ by concealing her religion. Upon remand, the Immigration Court granted asylum to Muhur.
Bah v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 838 (8th Cir. 2006). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) erroneously found that Bah had failed to argue, in his brief to the BIA, that his appeal waiver was not knowing and intelligent. The Court remanded the case to the BIA for it to determine the validity of Bah’s waiver of his right to administrative appeal. Upon remand, the BIA reopened and remanded the case to the Immigration Court to allow Bah to apply for relief from removal.
Moses v. Gonzales , No. 05-2277 (8th Cir. 2006). The Eighth Circuit Court affirmed the order denying asylum, but urged the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen the case because of new, material evidence. Specifically, the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services had recently granted asylum to Moses’ mother, but denied Moses’ asylum claim on similar facts and circumstances. The Board reopened the case and remanded the matter to the Immigration Court for further proceedings.
Ivanov v. Gonzales, No. 06-1178 (8th Cir. 2007). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Immigration Judge’s order reopening proceedings and terminating the grant of asylum. The Eighth Circuit remanded the case with directions to reinstate the asylum order. The Eighth Circuit held that the Immigration Judge abused his discretion in reopening the removal proceedings because the Department of Homeland Security failed to show that the evidence upon which the motion to reopen was based was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing where petitioners were granted asylum.
Ndonyi v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2008). The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Board of Immigration Appeals’ removal order in which it denied asylum to the petitioner. The Seventh Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Court held that the petitioner suffered past persecution on protected grounds and that the government failed to rebut the presumption that she has a well-founded fear of persecution if she returns to her native country.
Ginters v. Frazier, 614 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2010).. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the federal district court’s dismissal of Ginters’ Complaint for Declaratory Review of an I-130 denial, which was based on procedural default, collateral estoppel, and lack of jurisdiction under the REAL ID Act. First, the court found that petitioners were not procedurally barred from challenging United States Citizenship and Immigration Service’s (USCIS) denial of the I-130 spousal petition due to the foreign national beneficiary’s failure to request adjustment of status in his removal proceedings. Second, the court found that the “change in law” exception to the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied to petitioners’ second complaint. Third, the court found that there was no statutory bar against judicial review of USCIS’ marriage fraud finding and denial of an I-130 spousal petition. The court remanded the case for further review on the merits.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.