Source: https://attorneygazette.com/magdalena-cuprys
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:33:00+00:00

Document:
Magdalena Cuprys is the principal lawyer of Serving Immigrants, a full-service immigration law firm offering a complete range of immigration services to both businesses and individuals. The law firm is uniquely qualified to manage the most contentious and unusual immigration needs. Swift resolution of immigration-related issues is integral to a client’s ability to conduct business or reach their personal goals in the United States. Located in Miami and Clewiston, the firm’s offices provide corporate and individual clients of foreign nationality with temporary work permits for the U.S., green card petitions, criminal waivers and representation in removal proceedings cases. With over a decade of experience, the law firm provides clients with the confidence that their cases will be handled by an expert who understands their needs and how to obtain their goals. Although the majority of the law firm’s clients live in Florida, it represents people from all over the United States and several foreign countries.
Clewiston Office: 518 E Sugarland Hwy, Clewiston, FL 33440.
Magdalena Cuprys’ work on behalf of her clients has been referred to in several news articles. She represented a client in a particular egregious case where detainees were not given the necessary medical attention, which appeared several times in the media.
Many victims of domestic violence may fear that abusive family members will try to interfere with their immigration filings, either by providing negative information to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE), or by seeking to obtain copies of documents filed with USCIS. It is extremely important to understand that the law protects the privacy of their I-360 (VAWA Self-petition), I-751 (battered spouse or child), EOIR-42B (VAWA Cancellation) Applications. One must be aware, however, that in practice, USCIS does occasionally make mistakes and accidentally provides limited information (such as receipts and notices of interview) to abusive family members.
Protections for domestic violence victims are weakest with respect to reports made to immigration authorities about victims’ immigration violations. It must be noted that VAWA prohibits government officials from making “an adverse determination of admissibility or deportability of an alien under the Immigration and Nationality Act using information furnished “solely by” the abuser or agent of the abuser.
Furthermore, if removal proceedings are initiated against a noncitizen domestic violence victim, the Notice to Appear (NTA), which is the charging document in removal proceedings, must contain a certification of compliance with the privacy mandate of VAWA.
ICE’s current policy with respect to protections for such applicants means that one cannot provide domestic violence victims with complete or false assurances that they are always protected from enforcement actions. This in mind, defense practitioners should stand ready to contest NTA’s not only for lack of certification of compliance with the VAWA privacy provisions where required, but also where such certification is present, as ICE’s actions can be easily challenged.
It is important to remember that an applicant or client (victim of domestic violence) may well be in danger. Every year in the United States, intimate partner “violence results in nearly 20 million injuries and nearly 1,300 deaths.” As an immigration lawyer, it becomes extremely important to refer one’s client to a domestic violence service provider who can guide the applicant/client through safety planning for herself and her children.
•	Why did he hit you?
•	Why did you ever marry him?
•	Why did you stay with him?
A VAWA self-petition on Form I-360 is a variation on an Immediate Relative Petition. VAWA self-petitioning is open to close family members: the parents, spouses, and unmarried children under 21 of USCs (immediate relatives), as well as to spouses and unmarried children under 21 of LPRs.
•	If an application for adjustment of status is already pending, and the Relative Petition has not already been withdrawn or denied, no new application for LPR status is required.
•	If the abusive anchor relative has lost USC or LPR status within the last two years, the VAWA self-petitioner must demonstrate a connection between the loss of status and the abuse.
A Word of Caution: Barriers to Approvals of VAWA Self-Petitions.
Many immigrant victims of domestic violence have been in compromised situations and some have committed acts that create bars to obtaining approval of immigrant status as a VAWA self-petitioner.
•	Prior Marriage Fraud: a noncitizen who has previously been the beneficiary of a Petition for Alien Relative on Form I-130 based on a marriage, which later has been determined by federal immigration authorities “to have been entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws” may not have a Petition for Alien Relative on Form I-130 or a VAWA self-petition on Form I-360 approved.
•	Good moral character: Any activity in the domestic violence victim’s past (distant or otherwise) that is not related to domestic violence may preclude a finding of good moral character under INA § 101 (f). Under current USCIS interpretation of INA §204, many past acts serve as lifetime bars to VAWA self-petitioning on Form I-360.
•	The most important part of any VAWA self-petition is the victim’s story in her own words.
Where you have an opportunity to influence the timing, it is preferable to file the VAWA self-petition prior to the issuance of a final divorce decree.
Magdalena Ewa Cuprys is the principal attorney of Serving Immigrants (Cuprys and Associates), a full-service immigration law firm offering a complete range of immigration services to both businesses and individuals. The law firm is uniquely qualified to manage the most contentious and unusual immigration needs.
“Program Electronic Review Management process” (PERM)?
In the third article of her series of Instructional Articles, Florida Attorney Magdalena Cuprys comments on how to obtain a Green Card (“permanent residence”) through employment in the U.S. This is a highly complicated process, with many exceptions and special rules. Thus, this article can only provide a general explanation of the process. Specific issues should be discussed with a qualified attorney based on the facts and circumstances of a specific case.
WHAT IS “Program Electronic Review Management process” (PERM)?
For most people seeking permanent residency (Green Card) in the USA through employment, PERM labor certification through the U.S. Department of Labor is the first step in the process. In a nutshell, PERM is a process whereby an employer who is interested in hiring a foreign worker, places job advertisements to test the U.S. labor market. If no interested or qualified U.S. worker responds, the U.S. Department of Labor certifies that result. With that, the employer can petition a Green Card for the foreign employee.
This article is based in large part on the “OFLC Frequently Asked Questions and Answers” on the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment & Training Administration’s Website: https://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/faqsanswers.cfm.
* whether the employer has met the procedural requirement of the regulations.
Employers may submit the Application for Permanent Employment Certification (ETA 9089) electronically. The employer can access the Department of Labor Website to register and establish an account that will allow the employer to electronically fill out and submit Form ETA 9089. Unlike the former system, employers file applications directly with the U.S. Department of Labor (not with a State Workforce Agency (SWA)). Although an employer has the option of filing an application by mail, the Department of Labor recommends that employers file electronically. Not only is it faster, it ensures that the employer has provided all required information because an electronic application cannot be submitted if the required fields are not completed. Supporting documents are no longer submitted with the application. However, the employer must provide the required supporting documentation if the employer’s application is selected for audit or if the Certifying Officer otherwise requests it. The employer is required to retain all supporting documentation for five years from the date of filing the Form ETA 9089.
PERM requires the employer to conduct recruitment (job advertising) prior to filing. The types of advertising depend on the type of position. Recruitment provisions are divided into “professional” and “nonprofessional” occupations; additional recruitment steps are required for professional occupations. A list of professional occupations is published in Appendix A to the preamble of the final PERM regulations. Professional occupations are those for which a bachelor’s degree or higher is a customary requirement.
Recruitment under PERM also requires advertisements in the Sunday edition of a relevant newspaper. An acceptable newspaper is one that the employer is able to document that will be the most likely to bring responses from able, willing, qualified, and available U.S. workers.
In addition to the required recruitment steps, the employer must place a job order with the SWA serving the area of intended employment. Placement of job orders with a SWA must be in accordance with each SWA’s rules and regulations.
* The foreign worker must be hired as a full-time employee.
* The job must be a bona fide position available to U.S. workers.
* The job requirements must represent those customarily required for the occupation in the United States and may not be tailored to the foreign worker’s qualifications (such as with foreign language requirements).
* The employer must pay at least the prevailing wage for the occupation in the area of intended employment.
Does a PERM Labor Certification mean a quicker Green Card for employees?
Not really. One might think that PERM expedites the entire “Green Card” process. That is not necessarily so. The PERM system went into effect on March 28, 2005, and has in fact expedited the Labor Certification process itself. However, beyond the Labor Certification, there are two more steps involved in becoming a United States permanent resident: (1) filing the I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker and (2) filing the I-485, Application to Adjust Status. It is with the I-485 that the delays are occurring, especially for applicants from certain countries with many immigration applicants such as Mexico and India.
Once the Department of Labor has approved the PERM Labor Certification, it means the Department of Labor found that there are not enough able, willing, and qualified U.S. workers available to perform the alien’s job. The next step is to file an I-140 with the Immigration Service (USCIS), which is done by the employer of the alien. The I-140 approval means the Immigration Service has found that the alien is in fact qualified for the position certified in the labor certification and approves their employment in this capacity.
The final step, filing an I-485 application to adjust status to that of a “permanent resident,” usually takes the longest. For some nationalities the wait time can be many years. This is due to the fact that there are more individuals (especially those born in India, Mexico, the Philippines, and China) applying for immigrant visas than there are immigrant visas available. As an “immigrant visa” must be immediately available to adjust status, an I-485 application cannot be filed until the “priority date” is earlier than the date listed on the Department of State’s monthly Visa Bulletin. When one files a PERM labor certification, one receives a “priority date” (the filing date). The priority date, the country in which one was born, and the employment-based category (determined by the requirements of the job) determine when one can file an I-485.
For example, as of October 2018, an individual born in India and classified in the third preference employment-based category, who filed the PERM Labor Certification before October 1, 2009, is now eligible to file the I-485, Application to Adjust Status, and thus complete the Green Card process.
Magdalena Cuprys is the principal of Serving Immigrants, immigration law firm.
In the newest article of her series of Instructional Articles, Florida Attorney Magdalena Cuprys comments on Cancellation of Removal (when an immigration judge decides not to deport a person from the U.S.). This is a highly complicated legal procedure, with many exceptions and special rules. Thus, this article can only provide a general explanation of the process.
Specific issues should be discussed with a qualified attorney based on the facts and circumstances of a specific case.
Cancellation of Removal for a Non-LPR (Non-Lawful Permanent Resident) is a Discretionary Immigration Defense or form of Relief from Removal – thereby sparing the Respondent the consequences of Forced Removal/Deportation from the United States. This form of relief is only available before a US Immigration Court after an Individual has been placed into Removal Proceedings after the Issuance of an NTA (Notice to Appear).
This form of relief not only protects the Foreign National from forced Deportation/Removal, it also provides for eligibility to pursue/obtain Lawful Permanent Residence through this process (if found eligible by the Immigration Court).
In order to qualify for Cancellation of Removal and obtain Lawful Permanent Residence before a U.S. Immigration Court, one must demonstrate that the individual’s United States Citizen and LPR (Legal Permanent Resident) family members must prove before an Immigration Judge that “Extreme Hardships” shall be endured by them as a result of the impending forced separation. (This “Extreme Hardship Standard” and examples of critical evidence shall be discussed in depth in a subsequent Issue of this Series).
You must demonstrate that you are a good person and possess good moral fiber. Gathering evidence to prove this is critical, and should not be undertaken nor submitted without assistance of Counsel.
Criminal violations in many cases can automatically disqualify the Applicant from eligibility to apply for Cancellation of Removal. Any Violations whatsoever, including all arrests, etc. must be carefully reviewed by Counsel.
This form of relief is Discretionary, which means it is NOT a right; it is a privilege. The Immigration Judge shall make an individual case determination of whether or not to grant or approve any such relief. One must prove to the Court that one deserves this relief from removal.
Cancellation of Removal for LPR: There also exists another remedy before the US Immigration Court – known as Cancellation of Removal for LPR (Lawful Permanent Resident). This should NOT be confused with the Cancellation of Removal standard discussed above which is exclusive to NON-Green Card Holders. This remedy is only available to those Foreign Nationals who already have LPR Status (Green Cards). This form of relief from removal shall also be discussed in depth in another forthcoming issue of the Cuprys Law Instruction series.
Magdalena Cuprys is the principal of Serving Immigrants, a full-service immigration law firm offering a complete range of immigration services to both businesses and individuals. The law firm is uniquely qualified to manage the most contentious and unusual immigration needs. Swift resolution of immigration-related issues is integral to a client’s ability to conduct business or reach their personal goals in the United States. Located in Miami and Clewiston, the firm’s offices provide corporate and individual clients of foreign nationality with temporary work permits for the U.S., green card petitions, criminal waivers and representation in removal proceedings cases.
Magdalena Cuprys is the principal of Serving Immigrants, a Florida immigration law firm.
In the first article of her series of Instructional Articles, Florida Attorney Magdalena Cuprys comments on the issue of immigration consequences resulting from criminal pleas of guilty or nolo contendere, and how to challenge such guilty pleas subsequently in court.
Attorney Cuprys recently prevailed in a case in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida where she moved to vacate a judgment and sentence. She bases her comments on that case.
The facts of the case are as follows: The Defendant A.P.B., a Cuban citizen and resident of the U.S. since 2002, plead guilty in trial court to marihuana-related offenses, including selling and possession with intent. Apparently A.P.B.’s home was burglarized, and when police came to investigate, they found he was growing 26 marijuana plants inside the house. He had no prior criminal history. At the time, A.P.B. was represented by a different attorney who apparently did not inform the Defendant of any adverse immigration consequences that would result if he plead guilty. In fact, it seems that the prior attorney informed A.P.B. that there would be no adverse immigration consequences because he was a U.S. resident. It seems the attorney also failed to inform A.P.B. that a diversion program (“Drug Court”) would be available to him after which any charges would be dismissed if successfully completed. A.P.B. plead guilty in 2009 and was promptly arrested by officers of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and put into removal (deportation) proceedings.
Based on these facts, Attorney Magdalena Cuprys filed a Motion to vacate A.P.B.’s guilty plea and sentence, and alleging “ineffective assistance of counsel” by the prior attorney. According to A.P.B.’s affidavit, he relied on his attorney’s advice that there would be no adverse immigration consequences.
The key cases in this regard, under these particular circumstances, are Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (as for federal law), and Julien v. State, 917 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 4 DCA 2005) (as for Florida state law).
According to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Padilla, a criminal defense attorneys must advise noncitizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. The case extended the Supreme Court's prior decisions on criminal defendants' Sixth Amendment right to counsel to immigration consequences. See Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padilla_v._Kentucky.
The duties of Counsel recognized in Padilla are broad. After Padilla, if the law is unambiguous, attorneys must advise their criminal clients that deportation will result from a conviction. Also, if the immigration consequences of a conviction are unclear or uncertain, attorneys must advise that deportation "may" result.
Finally, attorneys must give their clients some advice about deportation: counsel cannot remain silent about immigration. Id.
“Petitioner Padilla, a lawful permanent resident of the United States for over 40 years, faces deportation after pleading guilty to drug distribution charges in Kentucky. In postconviction proceedings, he claims that his counsel not only failed to advise him of this consequence before he entered the plea, but also told him not to worry about deportation since he had lived in this country so long. He alleges that he would have gone to trial had he not received this incorrect advice. The Kentucky Supreme Court denied Padilla postconviction relief on the ground that the Sixth Amendment’s effective assistance-of-counsel guarantee does not protect defendants from erroneous deportation advice because deportation is merely a “collateral” consequence of a conviction.
The Court recognized that changes to immigration law have dramatically raised the stakes of a noncitizen’s criminal conviction. While once there was only a narrow class of deportable offenses and judges wielded broad discretionary authority to prevent deportation, immigration law changes have expanded the class of deportable offenses and limited judges’ ability to alleviate deportation’s harsh consequences. Because the drastic measure of deportation or removal is now virtually inevitable for a vast number of noncitizens convicted of crimes, the importance of accurate legal advice for noncitizens accused of crimes has never been more important.
Thus, as a matter of federal law, deportation is an integral part of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen defendants who plead guilty to specified crimes. See the Court’s summary of the case.
This “ineffective assistance of counsel” argument can then be further supported with state law. In this case (Florida), Attorney Cuprys supplemented the federal law argument with Julien v. State. In the rather brief opinion of Julien v. State, the Court ruled that an attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to inform his client of the option to apply for the pre-trial diversion program. That case is similar to the current set of facts as to A.P.B. in that the Drug Court program (just like a pre-trial diversion program) offers an alternative to pleading guilty.
The basic facts are that Maxime Julien was arrested for shoplifting some shoes from Burdines Department Store. A first-time offender, pled guilty to grand theft and was placed on probation. As a result of his plea, the United States commenced removal proceedings to rescind his permanent residence status and remove him to Haiti. Julien filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. In his amended motion for postconviction relief, Julien alleged that his attorney was ineffective in failing to inform him of his option to apply for the Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI), and in failing to investigate his claim that he should have been charged with misdemeanor petit theft instead of felony grand theft because the value of the stolen merchandise was under $300.
The Court notes that “Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.171(c)(2)(B) places a responsibility upon defense counsel to advise a defendant of all plea offers and "all pertinent matters bearing on the choice of which plea to enter and the particulars attendant upon each plea and the likely results thereof, as well as any possible alternatives that may be open to the defendant." (Emphasis supplied). As the criminal law expert explained, the PTI program is a "possible alternative" available to a first-time offender. For a first-time offender facing immigration consequences, the program is critical.
Based on these arguments presented by Attorney Cuprys, the Court granted the Motion on August 31, 2018, ordering that the Defendant’s plea, conviction, judgment and sentence be vacated.
The underlying case is State of Florida vs. A.P.B., Case No. F08-0035564 (August 31, 2018).
In this comment, Magdalena Cuprys, Esq. addresses and explains the business visa issues and visa alternatives in the U.S.
In the second article of her series of Instructional Articles, Florida Attorney Magdalena Cuprys comments on business visas for employment and possible alternatives.
Many visa applicants assume that once they complete the lengthy and expensive visa process and detailed interviews both at the U.S. Embassy and upon arrival in the U.S., they have accomplished their American Dream. If only that could be true.
Once they recover from the whole fingerprinting and interviewing stress, there is more to come. Whether you are a professional or a student, American bureaucracy will keep you busy for at least the first two months upon your arrival. You will quickly learn that one simply cannot function without the magic nine digits, known as a social security number (SSN). The social security system was designed to track income and earnings so that people could collect payments at a later point based on how long and how much they contributed over time.
However, since the government assigns a unique number to each individual, other institutions like to use it for their own purposes. Not having the SSN will make it impossible to open a bank account, as well as to receive a paycheck! Finding a local social security office should be your top priority, especially since you will have to wait for weeks before you get your number in the mail. However, once it arrives, all the barriers and frustration will disappear, and you will be all set to start your new American life.
Because H-1B work visas are limited (currently only 65,000 per year, plus 20,000 for holders of advanced U.S. degrees), it is important to keep in mind that there are alternatives that can help you bring needed foreign workers to the United States. You might want to consider some of the other nonimmigrant visa categories available that are not subject to this limitation.
This visa allows employees of a foreign company to come to the United States to participate in a project or training program. Only for short-term assignments, this classification requires that the foreign national continue to be employed by the foreign company and return to the foreign company after the project in the United States has been completed. The visa holder cannot receive a salary or other remuneration from a U.S. source except for an expense allowance or reimbursement for incidental expenses.
These visas allow foreign students and professionals to enter the United States for the purpose of training or developing their careers with a U.S.-based host organization for up to 18 months and 24 months of training, respectively.
One of the most useful tools available for international companies, the L1 visa category applies to foreign workers who work for a company with a parent, subsidiary, branch, or affiliate in the United States. These workers come to the United States temporarily to perform services either in a managerial or executive capacity (L-1A), or one which entails specialized knowledge (L-1B) for a parent, branch, subsidiary, or affiliate of the same employer that employs the professional abroad. The employee must have been employed abroad for the affiliated company on a full-time basis for at least one continuous year within the last three-year period to qualify. L-1 visas are issued up to a maximum initial period of three years and can be extended for up to seven years for L-1A managers and five years for L-1B specialized knowledge personnel.
E visas are issued initially for two years and can be extended almost without limit.
The O-1 visa category is reserved for individuals of “extraordinary ability” in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. To qualify as an individual of extraordinary ability, applicants must demonstrate that they possess “a level of expertise indicating that the person is one of a small percentage who has risen to the top of a field of endeavor.” Even though it sounds like only Nobel-prize winners can qualify, the truth is that the USCIS has dropped the standard, and the O category has become a useful alternative category.
An initial O-1 petition can be filed for up to a three-year maximum employment period. Subsequent extensions may be for no more than one year at a time. There is no limit to the number of extensions possible.
Under the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, the U.S. Department of State’s Summer Work/Travel program provides “foreign postsecondary students an opportunity to become directly involved in the daily life of the people of the United States through travel and temporary work for a period of up to four months during their summer vacation.” Foreign students participating in the program are authorized to work anywhere in the United States. Typically, most students work in nonskilled service positions at businesses such as resorts, hotels, restaurants, and amusement parks.
No prearranged employment before the foreign student enters the United States is required. Employers can make a hiring decision after the foreign student has arrived in the United States. Businesses will have the benefit of interviewing the candidate before extending an offer of employment. This will assure that the employment relationship will meet the needs of both the employer and the employee.
The article will be published on the Blog of Ms. Cuprys.
In the third article of her series of Instructional Articles, Florida Attorney Magdalena Cuprys comments on how to obtain a Green Card (“permanent residence”) through employment in the U.S. This is a highly complicated process, which many exceptions and special rules. Thus, this article can only provide a general explanation of the process. Specific issues should be discussed with a qualified attorney based on the facts and circumstances of a specific case.
Employers may submit the Application for Permanent Employment Certification (ETA 9089) electronically. The employer can access the Department of Labor Website to register and establish an account that will allow the employer to electronically fill out and submit Form ETA 9089. Unlike the former system, employers file applications directly with the U.S. Department of Labor (not with a State Workforce Agency (SWA)). Although an employer has the option of filing an application by mail, the Department of Labor recommends that employers file electronically. Not only is it faster, it ensures that the employer has provided all required information because an electronic application cannot be submitted if the required fields are not completed. Supporting documents are no longer submitted with the application. However, the employer must provide the required supporting documentation if the employer’s application is selected for audit or if the Certifying Officer otherwise requests it.
The employer is required to retain all supporting documentation for five years from the date of filing the Form ETA 9089.
The complete article will be published on the Blog of Ms. Cuprys.
Miami, FL (September 2018) The law firm of Cuprys and Associates announced today that immigration Lawyer Magdalena Cuprys succeeded in obtaining bond for a client, Ms. C.A., a Mexican citizen.
C.A. was accused of improperly receiving public assistance payments and subsidized housing benefits in Pasco County, Florida, based on a fraudulent Social Security card that she had purchased for $100. She was taken into custody after an investigation at a subsidized housing project where 30 undocumented families and about 60 U.S. born children were evicted.
According to news reports, some of the residents claimed that Housing Authority officials told them that they could live there regardless of their legal status in the U.S. as long as they had U.S. citizen children.
The underlying case is “In the Matter of: A., C.” (Executive Office for Immigration Review, Immigration Court, Florida).
Magdalena Cuprys received her Juris Doctor from the University of Washington School of Law. Before law school, she completed two bachelor’s degrees, one in Political Science and one in Latin American Studies, at the University of Chicago. (AB Degrees Political Science & Latin American Studies from the University of Chicago).
Magdalena Cuprys is the principal attorney of Serving Immigrants (Cuprys and Associates), a full-service immigration law firm offering a complete range of immigration services to both businesses and individuals. The law firm is uniquely qualified to manage the most contentious and unusual immigration needs.
Miami, FL (September 2018) The law firm of Cuprys and Associates announced today that immigration Lawyer Magdalena Cuprys obtained a bond and release for client Mr. C.W.M., a citizen of South Africa. C.W.M. arrived in the U.S. in 2015 and got married in 2017.
C.W.M. is now in removal (deportation) proceedings after a domestic violence incident in April 2018 when he was arrested. The facts are in dispute. His wife claims that C.W.M. acted violently and she called police. C.W.M. claims that he was the victim of manipulation and violence. C.W.M. has an asylum petition pending, and has lived peacefully in his community since 2015.
The underlying case is “In the Matter of: C.W.M. (Executive Office for Immigration Review, Immigration Court, Florida)."
Colombian entered the U.S. as stowaway.
The law firm of Cuprys and Associates announced today that immigration Lawyer Magdalena Cuprys won a “withholding of removal” (client will not be deported) in Immigration Court after a convoluted legal struggle.
Mr. C.M. is a 25-year-old Colombian citizen who entered the U.S. as a stowaway, and later filed an application for Asylum. All of C.M.’s applications for relief were denied by an immigration judge in August 2016. C.M. appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which remanded the case to the Immigration Court to clarify and reconsider its prior findings.
The Immigration Court found that C.M. had a credible fear of persecution if he were returned (deported) to Colombia. At the new hearing in Immigration Court, C.M. testified that three of his brothers were killed by a guerilla group, as well as two of his cousins. He himself was abducted and threatened.
Based on that testimony, the Immigration Judge denied C.M.’s asylum request, but granted withholding of deportation. As the Court noted, for a grant of withholding of removal, he must establish that his life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. C.M., who is black, testified that he may be persecuted in Colombia based on his race. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security did not present any evidence to the contrary. The Immigration Court thus granted the relief that C.M.’s deportation will be withheld.
The underlying case is “In the Matter of C… M…, #089-228-877 (Immigration Court, Krome Service Processing Center).
Magdalena Cuprys is the principal of Serving Immigrants, a full-service immigration law firm.
Young immigrant from Honduras had pled guilty to attempted robbery.
The law firm of Cuprys and Associates announced today that immigration Lawyer Magdalena Cuprys successfully got the criminal conviction of a young client vacated and set aside, thus giving him a chance of staying in the U.S. instead of being deported.
Ms. Cuprys explained that the client, H.C., is only 21 years old and originally from Honduras. He came to the U.S. at age 8, and at the time of the events held a U.S. work permit under the “deferred action status for childhood arrivals” (DACA). According to the records, he attempted a strongarm robbery and petit theft in 2015 when he was 19 years old, and was arrested as a result. H.C. had allegedly tried to steal someone’s bag.
While represented by another attorney, H.C. plead guilty and the Circuit Court (Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County) thus found H.C. guilty and ordered 2 years’ probation.
As a consequence of the guilty plea, H.C. ended up in deportation proceedings and was picked up by officers of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). While the deportation proceeding was pending, Attorney Magdalena Cuprys filed a Motion in the Circuit Court to vacate H.C.’s judgment and sentence, based on Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S.Ct. 1473 (2010) and Julien v. State, 917 So.2d 213 (Fla 4 DCA 2005).
Ms. Cuprys argued that the prior attorneys did not take all necessary action to protect H.C. In particular, H.C. did not know that the guilty plea would subject him to deportation back to Honduras. Also, according to Ms. Cuprys’ filings, the bag that H.C. allegedly tried to steal was in fact his.
The Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit (Miami-Dade County) now granted the motion that Ms. Cuprys had filed. After the Court granted Ms. Cuprys’ Motion to Vacate, the State of Florida announced that it would “nolle pros” the charge - the finding of guilt be vacated and set aside.
Note: “Nolle prosequi is a Latin phrase meaning “will no longer prosecute.” It is equivalent to a dismissal of charges.
The underlying case is #F15020585 (Circuit Court 11t5h Judicial Circuit, August 16, 2018).
More information on this particular case is available by clicking on FIND OUT MORE.
MIAMI, FLORIDA, UNITED STATES, July 29, 2018 /EINPresswire.com/ -- The law firm of Cuprys and Associates announced today that immigration Lawyer Magdalena Cuprys successfully appealed a denial of an immigrant visa (“Green Card”). On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals addressed the issue of “legitimate” and “illegitimate” children, and whether siblings of such children can be sponsored for U.S. immigration.
The client, Ms. N.B. from Honduras, was denied an immigrant visa by the Director of the USCIS California Service Center (“Director”) in February 2015. Her application was based on her being the sibling of a U.S. citizen (her sibling sponsored her application). The Director found that she did not have a bona fide parent-child relationship with their common father because she was an “illegitimate” child.
In its decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals noted that Honduras had eliminated all legal distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate children, making all children legitimate if born after December 1, 1957. See Matter of Sanchez, 16 I&N Dec. 671 (BIA 1979). See https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2012/08/17/2687.pdf. Thus, both N.B. and her sibling, both of whom were born after 1957, are legitimate. The Board therefore remands to the Director to continue processing the immigrant visa petition for N.B.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) addressed the issue of “legitimate” and “illegitimate” children and related immigration sponsorship issues.
Miami, FL (June 2018) – The United States Supreme Court announced the decision in Pereira v Sessions regarding the stop-time rule on June 21, 2018. In simple terms, the “stop-time rule” defines when continuous residence or continuous physical presence of a non-citizen ends. See INA § 240A(d). According to INA § 240A(d), continuous residence ends when either the non-citizen commits a criminal offense, or is served with a “Notice to Appear” (“NTA”) placing him/her in removal (deportation) proceedings. See INA § 240A(d)(1)(A)-(B). In this important decision, the Supreme Court pondered whether the stop-time rule is triggered when the government serves a non-citizen with a document that is labeled “Notice to Appear” but fails to specify either the time or place of the removal proceedings.
Pereira v. Sessions is about Wescley Fonseca Pereira, a Brazilian citizen, who overstayed his visa in the United States. The visa expired on December 21, 2000. In May 2006, Pereira was served with a Notice to Appear by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). While the notice ordered Pereira to appear before an immigration judge, the problem with the order was that no specific time or place regarding the hearing was on the Notice. To further complicate matters, the immigration court mailed Pereira a notice that scheduled his hearing for October 31, 2007, but they failed to mail the notice to his designated post office box. Therefore Pereira never received the Notice. After Pereira failed to show up in court, the court ordered Pereira to be removed (deported).
The United States Supreme Court now decided in an 8-1 decision that no, if a non-citizen is not informed of when and where to appear for removal proceedings, this does not trigger the stop-time rule.
Miami, FL July 8, 2018 – Magdalena Cuprys of Cuprys and Associates law firm announced today her new legal blog http://magdalenacuprysblog.blogspot.com/ which will focus primarily on visa and immigration matters, and how they are changing.
“With all the recent news and misinformation regarding immigration, I felt that I could help explain the truths behind the real issues at hand” said Magdalena Cuprys. “Here at Cuprys and Associates we have over a decade of experience working on immigration issues not only for individuals but for corporations as well,” Magdalena added. This experience can help people understand how visa and immigration matters are changing.
One of the important aspects generally not reported in the media is how immigration laws and regulations are applied. Only practitioners like Magdalena Cuprys have insight into these matters. For example, recently the immigration service USCIS seems to have begun to scrutinize in particular L-1B “specialized knowledge” petitions (these are visas for specialized employees who are transferred from abroad to the United States). Because it is difficult to prove exactly what “specialized knowledge” such an employee has in a written application, some attorneys are now using Expert Opinions as proof that the beneficiary in fact has such knowledge. Some practitioners have seen identical “Requests for Evidence” from USCIS about personal income when a U.S. citizen marries a foreign citizen, even when the proof of income that was initially submitted is clearly sufficient.
Magdalena is planning to inform the public about such developments that they may not read about in the newspaper or see on television.
Magdalena Cuprys is the principal of Serving Immigrants, a full-service immigration law firm offering a complete range of immigration services. The firm has a solid decade of experiences helping clients of foreign nationality with temporary work permits for the U.S., green card petitions, criminal waivers and representation in removal proceedings cases to name just a few of the services they provide. While the majority of the clients the firm assist live within the state of Florida, Serving Immigrants represents individuals all over the United States and several foreign countries.
Magdalena received her Juris Doctor from the University of Washington School of Law in 2002. She also has two bachelor’s degrees, one in Political Science and one in Latin American Studies, from the University of Chicago. Ms. Cuprys is admitted to the practice of law in Florida and California.
On a personal note, Ms. Cuprys speaks fluent Spanish and Polish, and is conversant in Russian and Italian. Ms. Cuprys herself is an immigrant, having left communist Poland when she was 8 years old. Ms. Cuprys spent a year living in a refugee camp in Latina, Italy and herself gone through the refugee and immigration process.
Immigration client had committed minor offenses in the past; Immigration attorney successfully argued that such minor offenses do not disqualify client from asylum in the U.S.
Immigration Lawyer Magdalena Cuprys of the law firm Cuprys and Associates announced today that the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled in her client’s favor in a disputed asylum case. Ms. Cuprys is a recognized immigration attorney based in Florida but represents clients not only in the United States but from outside of the U.S. as well. She filed an asylum case on behalf of her client H.C., a young man originally from Honduras. H.C. had been in the U.S. since the age of eight and feared persecution if he were to return to Honduras. Ms. Cuprys therefore presented his asylum request before an Immigration Judge.
The Immigration Judge agreed with Ms. Cuprys and her client H.C., and granted asylum in the Fall of 2017. However, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appealed the Immigration Judge’s decision. In particular, the Judge found that H.C. established “extraordinary circumstances” so that H.C. could receive asylum. Further, H.C. qualified as a refugee because of fear of persecution should he return to Honduras. On appeal, DHS argued that H.C.’s status under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program does not identify as an “extraordinary circumstances.” DHS opposed the asylum grant.
In its recent appeals decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals agrees with Immigration Lawyer Magdalena Cuprys. Ms. Curprys stated “the order came back that the appeal was dismissed. As you can imagine, we are very pleased with the court’s decision.” She went on to add “as to asylum cases, they are being challenged more and more because of the changing government policies”.
In particular, the Board of Immigration Appeals found that H.C.’s minor run-ins with the law did not disqualify him. While some criminal offenses may be within the “ambit of a particularly serious crime,” they certainly were not serious crimes in this case, as Ms. Cuprys successfully argued. Thus, the Board dismisses the appeal by the Department of Homeland Security. H.C. can now complete the asylum procedures and remain in the U.S.
The case Ermini v. Vittori arose out of the marital dissolution of an Italian couple. The couple moved to the United States with their two sons and signed a one-year lease on a New York apartment in August 2011 after they were unable to secure adequate treatment in Italy for their autistic son Daniele. They enrolled Daniele in a Comprehensive Application of Behavior Analysis to Schooling (“CABAS”) program in Stony Point, New York. The program offered personalized instruction with an educational team, including a special educational teacher, an occupational therapist, a speech and language therapist, several classroom assistants, and a full-time one-on-one teaching assistant.
Daniele’s mother, Viviana Vittori (Vittori), instituted divorce proceedings against Daniele’s father, Emiliano Ermini (Ermini) in April 2012 after numerous incidents of domestic abuse. Ermini had remained employed in Italy and traveled between Italy and the United States to visit his family, but petitioned the district court during the divorce proceedings and ensuing custody dispute to have both children returned to Italy pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
Specifically, Ermini petitioned the return of his two sons to Italy alleging that the two boys who were Italian citizens had been retained in the United States by Vittori, also an Italian citizen without Ermini’s consent. After a trial, the district court denied the petition without prejudice to renewal if Daniele was not able to continue with his current CABAS program. The Italian court system issued a final order requiring the return of the children to Italy.
Daniele was diagnosed with autism on March 14, 2008, when he was approximately two years old. Both parents were committed to helping Daniele and took him to several doctors in Italy as well as abroad to Scotland for medical treatment. When their own resources were inadequate to pay for the treatments, they solicited donations through a website dedicated to Daniele. Dr. Antonucci was Daniele’s primary treating professional in Italy from December 2008 until May 2010. One of the treatments that Dr. Antonucci recommended was hyperbaric oxygen therapy, which was eventually administered in a hyperbaric chamber installed in the family home in Italy. Daniele’s support teacher in Italy was not familiar with any specific techniques for treating autistic children. On their own initiative, the parents attended training in Applied Behavioral Analysis (“ABA”) techniques at a private institution. With permission from Daniele’s school principal, Vittori spent two hours daily at Daniele’s school instructing the support teacher in ABA techniques. Both parents consulted another physician in Italy, Dr. Claudia Lerz, to develop an ABA treatment plan for Daniele. According to Vittori’s expert, Dr. Fiorile, ABA therapy is the most common treatment for children with autism in the United States and it can have an enormous impact on the life of an autistic child.
Dr. Antonucci also endorsed ABA treatment. Vittori estimated that she personally provided 70-80% of Daniele’s thirty to forty weekly hours of ABA treatment while the family was living in Italy. Professional ABA treatment would have been preferable but very expensive. The Italian national health care system covered 90 minutes a week of psycho-motility therapy for the first year after Daniele’s autism diagnosis, with an extra 90 minutes of speech therapy during the second year. However, it did not cover other types of treatment or therapy. Both parents were dissatisfied with the options for Daniele’s schooling and therapy in Italy as they did not see results in his developmental progress. They began to look elsewhere for treatment options. In Spring 2010, the parents met Dr. Giuseppina Feingold in Italy. Dr. Feingold was an Italian-speaking pediatrician with a practice in Suffern, New York specializing in children with special needs. In August 2010, they traveled with both sons to Suffern so that Dr. Feingold could assess and begin treating Daniele. The family stayed with Vittori’s cousins at their Connecticut home.
During that visit, they met other parents at Dr. Feingold’s clinic who shared provisions for special needs children at the local schools in Suffern. Both were impressed by the treatment options available in the United States. Around this time, they began to formulate a plan to relocate to the United States for two or three years, during which time they would decide if it would be feasible to make a permanent move to the United States. Meanwhile, Ermini met with Marcello Russodivito about potentially investing in Russodivito’s restaurant so that he could obtain a business visa for himself and derivative ones for his family in order to pursue treatment for Daniele in the United States. On September 2, 2011, the couple co-signed a one-year lease for a house near Russodivito’s restaurant. On September 15, 2011, Vittori and her two sons moved into that house. In September and November, the boys were enrolled in the local public school. In an email to Vittori, Ermini said that they should ship “books, clothing, any furniture we can’t sell, ornaments, dishes, sheets, blankets” in a cargo container from Italy to the United States. On September 13, 2011, he wrote to the U.S. Consulate in Rome to apply for visas for himself and his family for the purpose of “exploring the possibilities of entering into a business partnership with Mr. Marcello Russodivito who already owns an established Italian restaurant in the city of Suffern, NY. I also wish to request a B-2 visa for my wife and 2 children, who will accompany me in this trip to the United States.” Vittori traveled with the children to Italy to renew their visas in November 2011 and then returned to Suffern. Meanwhile Ermini traveled to Italy to finish settling the family’s affairs and did not return to the United States until December 2011. Ermini left again for Italy in early January 2012, following an altercation with Vittori. Although the children had not left the United States since November 2011, but Vittori left the country again in April 2012 to attend court proceedings in Italy. On December 1, 2012, Vittori and the two children moved to their current residence in Suffern. Ermini never relocated to the United States.
Meanwhile, on September 20, 2012, Ermini had applied to the Italian court for an order directing Vittori to return to Italy with the children. With only Ermini in attendance, the court in Velletri ordered Vittori to return to Italy with the children and also ordered temporary measures including that the parents live separately but share parental authority; Vittori and the children would live in the family home; Ermini could visit 8–12 hours per week; and that Ermini would pay spousal and child support of 1,600 Euros per month. At the time of trial, Vittori had not complied with the Italian court’s order to return to Italy with the children, nor had there been visitation or other contact between Ermini and the children. Vittori appealed the Velletri court’s order and on April 5, 2013, the Court of Appeals in Rome vacated several provisions of the September 20, 2012, order and granted her exclusive custody of the children. The April 5, 2013 order also withdrew the Velletri Court’s order thereby revoking both the award of the family home to Ermini. However it did not preclude Ermini’s application to the district court because it was only a temporary order, which appeared to have been designed to conform with U.S. Family Court protective orders.
Due to Daniele’s limited capacity for speech, he did not appear in court. Vittori testified that she took care of feeding Daniele, grooming him and ensuring that he was properly supervised. According to Vittori and Dr. Fiorile, Daniele had shown significant progress in his school environment in the United States. When he first began school in the United States, Daniele’s test results were far below average; at age six, he demonstrated the motor skills of a three-year old. Dr. Fiorile suggested that Daniele performed poorly on the testing because his Italian treatments had been deficient. According to Dr. Fiorile, the CABAS program offered the best ABA curriculum available to autistic children. Dr. Fiorile further testified that Daniele had one-to-one instruction throughout the day and had made exceptional progress. Dr. Fiorile explained that the high level of intervention in Daniele’s current classroom setting was the key to his success. Moreover, she believed that Daniele required this program in order to continue experiencing meaningful progress in cognition, language, social and emotional skills. While the United States has over 4,000 board certified ABA practitioners, Dr. Fiorile knew of fewer than twenty in Italy. Therefore, she concluded in her January 11, 2013 report that if Daniele were separated from his CABAS program, he “will most certainly fail to make the same level of progress and will, without doubt, demonstrate significant skill regression” and that it would be “extremely harmful” to return him to Italy at this time. The Court found that separating Daniele from CABAS would put him in an intolerable situation due to the grave risk of deterioration of his condition and denial of needed rehabilitation.
On the contrary, Ermini argued that Vittori and the children did not currently have legal immigration status in the United States, as they had overstayed their visas in April 2012. In October or November of 2012, Vittori applied for a visa for both herself and the children on the basis of the domestic abuse. Her application was currently pending.
The district court found that the then couple intended to move to the United States as a family for a period of two to three years, during which time medical and rehabilitative treatment would be pursued for Daniele, and also agreed that it was possible that the move would be made permanent at the end of the three-year period, circumstances permitting. Notwithstanding the plan to sell their house in Italy to fund the restaurant investment, there was no agreement to abandon the family’s ties to Italy.
The court ultimately concluded that the children’s habitual residence for Hague Convention purposes at the time of their retention in the United States was Italy; that the retention was in breach of Ermini’s custody rights under the law of Italy; and that Ermini was exercising those rights at the time of the children’s retention in the United States.
The burden then shifted to Vittori to assert affirmative defenses against the return of the children to Italy. The court accepted Vittori’s argument that return to Italy posed a “grave risk” of harm to Daniele, pursuant to Hague Convention, Article 13(b), which precludes repatriation of a child where there “is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation”, and ruled in Vittori’s favor.
The district court denied Ermini’s petition for return to Italy as to both children without prejudice to renewal if Daniel is no longer able to participate in the CABAS program. Ermini appealed.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial and amended the judgment to deny the petition with prejudice.
The key issue here is whether the psychological and physical harms of separating a child from autism therapy were sufficiently grave to allow a displaced child to remain in the country where they receive the therapy.
The Court reviewed de novo the district court’s interpretation of Hague Convention.
 at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.
“Finally, it should be noted that, since the Convention is a pact among nation-states, Congress has emphasized ‘the need for uniform international interpretation of the Convention.’ 42 U.S.C. § 11601(b)(3)(B). In light of this necessity, the Supreme Court has made clear that, in interpreting the Convention, we are to give the opinions of our sister signatories ‘considerable weight.’ Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392, 404, 105 S.Ct. 1338, 84 L.Ed.2d 289 (1985) (quoting Benjamins v. British European Airways, 572 F.2d 913, 919 (2d Cir.1978)).” (internal quotation marks omitted).
While the Court accepts the district court’s findings that both wrongful retention and breach of custody rights had occurred here, thereby triggering the Convention’s applicability, it doubts as to the district court’s conclusions of law on these issues.
The Court then turns to analyze the “grave risk” of harm issue under the Convention. Although the Court agrees with the district courts finding that the risk of harm Daniele faced if removed from his therapy and returned to Italy was grave enough to meet the Hague Convention’s standards, the Court also holds that Ermini’s history of domestic violence towards Vittori and the children was itself sufficient to establish the Hague Convention’s “grave risk” of harm defense.
As stated above, the Court finds district court’s conclusion of law as correct when district court concluded that a “grave risk” of harm existed if Daniele would be removed from his current therapy and returned to Italy.
DP Commonwealth Cent. Auth.,  HCA 39 (High Ct. Austl.) (finding that a lack of adequate treatment facilities for a child with autism in his country of habitual residence was a reason for refusing to return the child).
The Court, however, does not agree with district court denial of Ermini’s petition without prejudice to renewal if Daniele is not able to continue with his current CABAS program and the Italian court system issues a final order requiring the return of the children to Italy.
The Court affirms the District Court’s denial of appellant’s petition, and amends its judgment to deny that petition with prejudice.
Case Reference: Ermini v. Vittori, 758 F.3d 153 (11th Cir. 2014).
Magdalena Cuprys is the principal of Serving Immigrants, a full-service immigration law firm offering a complete range of immigration services to both businesses and individuals.
Copyright © 2018-2019 Attorney Gazette, News for the Legal Profession - All Rights Reserved.

References: § 101
 §204
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 240
 § 240
 § 240
 v. 
 v. 
 § 11601
 v. 
 v. 
 v.