Notice To Appear Case Study

The client was arrested and detained by the ICE in Miami due to previous removal order. His Motion to reopen was denied because it was bared for untimely and past several motions to reopen; and he was waiting for deportation. The client hired us to appeal the denial order of Motion to Reopen. The client’s former employee filed a labor Certificate prior to April, 2001 and his USC sister’s immigration petition was approved many years ago. The BIA granted our Motion to Reopen. We successfully obtained a bond before the BTC and transferred his case to the immigration Court in S. Carolina, where his sister resides. The client continued retained June Zhou as his attorney. We asked for adjudicating status based on I-245(i) before the Immigration Court in S. Carolina. However, at the day of the final hearing, our client was panic and did not show up at the Court. Attorney Zhou had to file another motion to reopen, which was granted by the Immigration Court.

Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss their action against the Defendants under K.S.A 60-241(b). Defendants have opposed this motion because they feel it would be unfair to them because 1) it would not settle the issues in the case, 2) it would deny the Defendants further discovery, and 3) it represents only a partial dismissal of the case because the Court would maintain the protective order. This memo is divided in two main parts. The first part discusses both dismissals without and with prejudice and considers the advantages and disadvantages of both. To choose, which to go with the main question will be balancing the risk of the Court imposing expenses as a condition of dismissal vs. the State foreclosing its ability to re-file

Procedural History: The federal court refused to hear the case because it is in question whether or not

Defendant will agree that Plaintiff filed an Affidavit of Compliance. However, Plaintiff failed to file the return receipt or any document which actually shows more than attempted service on Defendant, Norman Henson,

The granting of the appeal nunc pro tunc will only be justified when the Appellant provides a permissible ground for her delay in filing the appeal with the Department as it was filed after the 30 day appeal period. The Appellant testified that she filed a written appeal, via letter dated May 13, 2016 (Exhibit J-1), which was sent to the Department by way of United States mail. The Appellant offered no evidence to show that she mailed the letter to the Department. She did not send the mail certified nor did she provide proof of delivery confirmation. The Appellant failed to substantiate her claim that the letter requesting appeal was sent to the Department

I am requesting a hearing on my denied for form N-400 because i siagree with the decision that the agency has made and I have not yet received the paper that the department of homeland security requires me to send, I am in the process of acquiring the papers that they need me to send, they did not give enough time to acquire the papers, obatining the papers that they want me to send requires a longer extension then the one they gave me. I think that the reason for their denial is unfair and unjust, i think that they did not give me enough time to obtain the papers and send them. If i can obtain a fair hearing i can have the chance to send the papers that they need. The papers that they need requires time and i believe that they did not give

In this case, the Department credibly testified to mailing the Appellant a Notice. Although the Appellant stated that she did not receive the Notice, she provided no evidence to show that that it was caused by the Department. Furthermore she testified to her mail carrier placing her mail in the mail receptacles of other tenants as well as other unassigned places. The ALJ finds that errors made by the Postal Service, are not caused by the Department, and therefore finds that the Department had no fault in the non-receipt of the Appellant’s

In response to Mother filing a Motion to Strike Father’s Reply Brief stating that it failed to meet legal requirements (i.e. issues/evidence was not provided legally). In agreement, the Arizona Court of Appeals will not consider issues or

Issue 1: Under the Alien Tort Statute, are individuals allowed to bring a civil suit against non-citizens for crimes conducted and committed in violation of the law of

I have received the Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Interrogatories. Please note that on December 16, 2015, the Court ordered that the plaintiffs would need leave to serve additional interrogatories on the defendants. The defendants will respond to the supplemental interrogatories served on them on November 7, 2016, but by doing so do not waive their right to object to further discovery served on them in this

The request for evidence generated based on documents submitted has been investigated and examined to present alternative facts and assumptions by presuming actions. Hence, request for evidence can be categorized as following determination.

Currently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has denied the U.S. Department of Justice’s

evidence with regard to the issue. The Supreme Court believed the respondent was denied due

It became apparent that the responder was more relaxed and prepared for the argument because, on multiple occasions, Chief Justice Roberts had to redirect the petitioner’s responses to answer the questions posed by the justices. I believed that the respondent had a more compelling argument, asserting that Congress does not have to express every possible element of a minimum sentencing crime.

6. The applicant disputes that she refused to obey lawful and reasonable instructions. She also contends that her dismissal was substantively and procedural unfair. She said that she performed the work according to the instruction