Immigration Law Update: USCIS Grants Motion to Reopen
Our office recently posted about an unfortunate situation that occured with our clients’ prior counsel. In sum, our clients had retained a local “China lawyer” that is apparently well-known and oft-referred to by many in Southern California’s Chinese community.
On March 17, 2020, our office prepared and filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Reopening of our clients’ I-130 Petition.
On April 21, 2020, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reviewed our motion and granted the Motion based upon, in part, the findings below:
“Your attorney argued in his brief that the reason USCIS denied your petition was the result of ineffective assistance from your prior counsel. You provided declarations and documentation stating you filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance Committee in [STATE]. You also included evidence in support of the bona fide [nature] of your marital relationship to the beneficiary. Based upon the submitted documentation and a review of the record, the Service has determined to reopen the petition and consider it for further review.”
Indeed, our motion detailed the sub-standard service that our clients’ prior attorney had provided, and we took careful steps in detailing the failures of prior counsel and multiple instances where ethical violations had likely occurred. While preparing the motion, we learned that this particular attorney is just like the stereotypical “China lawyer” that the local Chinese community in Southern California is well-accustomed to by now.
USCIS agreed with our arguments and ultimately concluded that:
“Upon review of the evidence presented and after consideration of the law, regulations, and policies guiding USCIS, the previous decision on the I-130 petition filed by you on behalf of your spouse, [name redacted], is reopened.”
Indeed, it should be noted that prior to the retention of our office, our clients had already been swindled by their prior attorney for thousands of dollars. At the time of our initial consultation, our clients were understandably skeptical and had already developed a distrust for lawyers due to the services that they had been receiving from prior counsel.
It was not an easy decision for our clients to retain us in this case, and especially here, where our clients ended up paying a couple thousand dollars more on top of what they had already spent on their case. While it is true that our clients had to pay more for our services, we are happy to announce that the prior attorney agreed to refund a significant portion of the fees that our clients had originally paid.
We are pleased to learn of this result and look forward to assisting our clients with the next steps of their immigration petition. We would also like for this to serve as a reminder and hope that it may be beneficial for you in the event that you should find yourself in a position that requires securing legal counsel.
