Source: https://www.kktplaw.com/Verdicts-Settlements/Immigration-Results/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 18:03:57+00:00

Document:
Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A. is a premier, full-service immigration firm. Our award-winning immigration attorneys are experienced in representing foreign nationals in every type of immigration matter, ranging from business visas of all types, I-9 and Department of Labor audits, compliance, family-based adjustment of status and naturalization, investment-based immigration, and removal and deportation.
Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A. has an established history of successful immigration litigation. Founding attorney Ira Kurzban authored the Immigration Law Sourcebook, a reference guide widely used by judges, government officials and other immigration lawyers.
Our lawyers have successfully obtained approval of countless L visa petitions. Recent challenging cases include an L-1A visa petition for a key executive after an initial L-1A petition had been denied when filed by prior counsel for the U.S. corporate client.
Our lawyers obtained an L-1A visa for a non-salaried founder executive of a Venezuelan Real Estate Development company launching a U.S. start-up. Similarly, we have obtained E-1 and E-2 on trade and investment.
Our lawyers routinely obtain E-1, E-2, H-1B, TN, E-B3, H1B1, B-1, and other visas even in difficult cases, and even in today's challenging immigration environment.
We successfully litigated approval of EB-1(C) (multinational executive/manager) green card petition for an executive of a restaurant company. After suing the government in Federal Court, the judge reopened the case. The government sent our client a Notice of Intent to Deny. Our response to the Notice of Intent to Deny resulted in approval by the government of our client's petition, and he is now a green card holder.
We obtained a green card for an internationally known Latin American musician, who is now a green card holder.
We have successfully represented a number of lesser-known individuals in the artistic, business, and science sectors, who were found to have "extraordinary ability" by USCIS and awarded green cards.
Zhang v. USCIS - On behalf of a class of EB-5 investors, we obtained a ruling that invalidated USCIS's policy of classifying loan proceeds invested in an EB-5 project as "indebtedness" rather than "cash." The Court ordered USCIS to reopen the cases of all investors whose visa petitions were denied based on the unlawful policy.
We have successfully represented numerous U.S. companies seeking to obtain green cards for their valued employees through the PERM/labor certification process.
We recently represented a Tunisian national, who had assisted the U.S. in the fight against terrorism. He had been wrongfully charged as a terrorist. Our attorneys convinced the Board of Immigration Appeals that the immigration judge erred in finding that our client was inadmissible. The Board remanded the case, and the immigration judge granted our client a request for adjustment of status. He is currently a green card holder, living in the U.S.
We successfully represented a world-renowned hip-hop artist from the U.K. throughout his decades-long battle to obtain a green card. We represented this individual before the Immigration Courts, including the Board of Immigration Appeals, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. We were ultimately successful in obtaining his green card and he is now a naturalized United States citizen.
These are but a few examples of the countless immigration successes we have been able to achieve for our foreign national clients, many of whom are now productive and contributing lawful permanent residents and U.S. citizens.
Our attorneys have successfully represented individuals and businesses in obtaining every type of visa, including F-1 student visas, J-1 scholar visas, and lawful permanent status under VAWA (the Violence Against Women Act), for foreign nationals who have been the victims or crime or abuse in the U.S. We also handle applications for waivers when a visa has been or may be denied.
Our lawyers have successfully handled countless complex, difficult asylum cases for those fleeing persecution on the basis of race, politics, religion, or social group.
On April 11, 2019, the Honorable William F. Kuntz, II issued a decision in Saget et al. v. Trump et al., 18-cv-1599 (EDNY). Judge Kuntz granted Plaintiffs a nationwide preliminary injunction, prohibiting the Department of Homeland Security from terminating TPS for Haitian nationals lawfully residing in the U.S. Judge Kuntz's 145 page Order is a sweeping indictment of the Trump Administration's - and particularly, its political appointees' - decision to terminate TPS for Haiti. Despite an incredibly expedited discovery period, Plaintiffs obtained extensive evidence that the Trump Administration terminated TPS for Haiti in violation of the APA and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In one such email exchange highly indicative of racial motivations, a high-level DHS official brags "African countries are toast . . . Haiti is up next." Throughout discovery, a consistent theme emerged: officials in DHS and USCIS intentionally misconstrued the TPS statute and country condition evidence in Haiti in an effort to support terminating TPS for Haiti. Or, as Judge Kuntz determined, the Trump Administration "reverse engineered the TPS review process to achieve a desired political outcome." This the APA does not allow. Judge Kuntz ultimately concluded that it is "highly likely" that Plaintiffs will succeed on their substantive APA and Equal Protection claims, and obtain permanent injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs are represented by the law firm Kurzban, Kurzban, Tetzeli & Pratt, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and the law firm Mayer Brown.
Our firm secured a major win for EB-5 investors whose visa petitions were wrongly denied on the ground that their investments were "debt arrangements" prohibited by EB-5 rules. See Chang v. USCIS, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2018 WL 746081 (D.D.C. 2018). The court ruled in our clients' favor, holding that USCIS was wrong to deny the I-526 petitions based on the existence of a "call option," and that in doing so, USCIS misapplied the precedent decision Matter of Izummi and its own definition of "invest." The court summed up by concluding that in denying our clients' cases, "USCIS has acted in a manner that conflicts with the plain language of its regulations, that is not compelled by statutory or regulatory purpose, that unreasonably stretches the rationale of Matter of Izummi, and that runs counter to the evidence in the record."
Chang v. United States - A leading decision in the EB-5 area, we helped secure a precedent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which protects EB-5 conditional residents from retroactive changes to EB-5 policy. The case ultimately settled, allowing hundreds of conditional residents to obtain full lawful permanent residency in the United States.
Chang v. USCIS - Secured a precedent decision reversing the denial of immigrant investor petitions based on a redemption provision that immigration officials improperly characterized as a "debt arrangement." The victory shaped EB-5 policy by prompting immigration authorities to amend official USCIS guidance on "debt arrangements" in the EB-5 Program.
Wang v. USCIS - Defeated the government's motion to dismiss a challenge to an EB-5 visa petition decision where the government claimed the decision was an unreviewable visa petition revocation rather than a denial.
Wang v. U.S. Dep't of State - Obtained provisional class certification for EB-5 investors adversely affected by EB-5 visa backlogs.
Arnott v. USCIS - Obtained a settlement on behalf of a class of more than 100 EB-5 conditional residents whose I-829 petitions were denied based on USCIS's misapplication of the "material change" doctrine.
L-H- v. USCIS - Obtained a settlement on behalf of a H-1B petitioner and beneficiary which resulted in USCIS vacating its denial and reopening the case.
Ramos v. U.S. Att'y Gen. - Obtained a published decision reversing a removal order against a lawful permanent resident.
Walters v. USCIS - Secured U.S. citizenship for a lawful permanent resident ordered removed and deported from the United States.
K-S- v. U.S. Att'y Gen. - Obtained government consent to vacate removal order and remand a case to the Board of Immigration Appeals for a client accused of asylum fraud.
N-H- v. U.S. Att'y Gen. - Secured favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion, resulting in the vacatur of a removal order against an application for adjustment of status.
Flores v. United States - In the first decision of its kind, we obtained a ruling that person in the United States who is seeking asylum is lawfully present for purposes of the federal venue statue and can therefore file suit in her home district. The Court later rejected the government's request to transfer venue. We later secured a monetary settlement on the client's behalf.
Creedle v. Miami-Dade County - Collaborated with the University of Miami School of Law's Immigration Clinic and the ACLU of Florida to defeat efforts by Miami-Dade County and the Federal Government to dismiss a case brought by a U.S. citizen who was illegally held on an immigration detainer.
Saget v. Trump - Co-counsel in a challenge to the termination of Temporary Protected Status for Haitians, which a federal judge has ordered should proceed.
ASSE Int'l Inc. v. Kerry - Secured the first precedent decision in the country confirming that private sponsors of foreign exchange visitors have a right to fight sanctions imposed against them. The court also ruled that the procedures the government used to sanction our client were fundamentally unfair.
Allen v. Goard - Won damages in a lawsuit to enforce an immigrant's affidavit of support.
KKTP is spearheading a lawsuit challenging Miami-Dade County's detainer policy.
On November 9, 2018, a federal district court rejected efforts by Miami-Dade County to dismiss a lawsuit challenging its unlawful detention of a U.S. citizen at the request of federal immigration officials. Under the county's detainer policy, county jail officials re-arrest people for suspected civil immigration violations at the end of their criminal custody, upon request by ICE. The lawsuit argues that the policy violates both federal and Florida law, including the prohibition against unlawful seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court's order ensures that the case against the County and the federal government will move forward. The law firm Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli & Pratt is co-counsel on the case with the University of Miami School of Law's Immigration Clinic and the ACLU of Florida.

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