Source: https://www.sggimmigration.com/lawyers/helen-a-sklar/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 05:15:01+00:00

Document:
Helen A. Sklar has practiced exclusively in the field of immigration and nationality law since 1985. She has worked in non-profit community agencies, immigration law clinics, and volunteer programs. She ran her own immigration practice from 1991 to 2009 during which she represented hundreds of non-citizens in deportation, removal, citizenship, naturalization, lawful permanent residence, consular processing, and rescission proceedings. There are few benefits or defenses available under the Immigration and Nationality Act that Ms. Sklar has not analyzed and applied in the interest of assisting a noncitizen come to or remain in the U.S.
Prior to becoming a lawyer, Ms. Sklar was a social worker. In that capacity she co-founded Dane County Advocates for Battered Women in Madison, Wisconsin, now known as Domestic Abuse Intervention Services.
(DHS’ failure to provide updated mental health information to the IJ and BIA).
Nai Yuan Jiang v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1086, 1097 (9th Cir. 2010)(Petitioner was entitled to refugee protection as any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that he established past persecution for “other resistance” to the population control policy).
Mendiola–Sanchez v. Ashcroft, 381 F. 3rd 937 (9th Cir. 2004) (Stop-time rule applies in suspension of deportation cases because it is entitled “Transitional Rules with Regard to Suspension of Deportation” and it specifically refers to OSCs).
Castillo–Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 525 (9th Cir. 2000)(No need to comply with Lozadarequirement of notice on former counsel, or filing a bar complaint, when the record itself demonstrates the legitimacy of the ineffective assistance claim).
Matter of Grijalva, 21 I&N 97 (BIA 1995)(on brief) (If personal service is not practicable, such notice must be given by certified mail to the respondent or to his counsel of record, if any, with the requirement that the certified mail receipt be signed by the respondent or a responsible person at the respondent’s address to accomplish personal service).
Pinhas v. Holder, No. 0871955 (9th Cir. June 19, 2013 (BIA and the IJ erred by failing to “‘state [their] reasons and show proper consideration of all factors’” in denying Pinhas relief in the form of asylum as a matter of discretion).
Saidani v. Holder, 329, Fed.Appx. 90 (9th Cir. May 19, 2009) (IJ erred by permitting the adverse credibility determination to “wash over” Saidani’s CAT claim; upheld denial of asylum and withholding of removal).
Ruiz–Flores v. Gonzales, No. 05-72723 (9th Cir. July 16, 2007) (BIA abused its discretion when it required petitioners to demonstrate their eligibility for cancellation of removal, when they need only demonstrate that the deficient performance by counsel may have affected the outcome of proceedings).
Vu v. Gonzales, 219 Fed. Appx. 651 (9th Cir. January 22, 2007) (Because BIA committed an abuse of discretion in rejecting Vu’s first motion to reopen, Court granted the petition for review in one of three motions to reopen filed by Vu, and remand with instructions to grant the motion to reopen).
Mexican Suspension Cases: Using Conditions in Mexico to Establish Extreme Hardship, Silverman, Sklar, Hing.

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