Aggressive and Thorough Representation
in Immigration, Criminal & Family Law
Some Victories for Trupiano Law with Obtaining Immigration Bond in Immigration Court and through Immigration & Customs Enforcement, including for Clients with Criminal History
If you are looking for a criminal defense and/or immigration defense lawyer for yourself or a loved one, you want positive results. We agree in that objective and aggressively pursue the best possible results for our clients.
Below is a list, which is not all inclusive, of representative cases involving clients who were released on immigration bond despite the fact they had a criminal record.
Matter of J.V.
Mr. V was convicted in Wyoming of domestic violence. Trupiano Law successfully argued for his release on bond by briefing that the language of the Wyoming statute does not rise to the level of the federal equivalent of crimes of violence and crimes of moral turpitude.
Mater of O.F.
Attorney Kim Trupiano was able to prepare a motion for an immigration bond to the district director of Immigration & Customs Enforcement in Salt Lake City. The bond was granted although Kim’s client had a recent DUI case.
Matter of P.C.M.
Attorney Kim Trupiano applied successfully to ICE for an immigration bond although her client had an arrest for failure to obey command of police officer. She was able to obtain the bond upon showing her client was eligible for relief against removal, was not a flight risk, did not pose a risk of danger, and was worthy of discretion.
Matter of A. K.
Mr. K is a citizen of Poland who had been residing in Canada as a legal permanent resident. He was caught by Taylorsville police and was arrested for shoplifting approximately $900 worth of merchandise from a store in Utah. ICE interviewed him while at the Salt Lake Metro Jail. Trupiano Law represented Mr. K for the criminal matter and ensured that Ms. K made no incriminating statements so that charges were subsequently never filed. Trupiano Law sought voluntary departure, which was granted. Mr. K was eligible for voluntary departure under INA § 240B(a)(1) “in lieu of being subject to proceedings under Section 240 or prior to the completion of such proceedings . . . .” This would allow Mr. K to continue to enter the United States on a tourist visa as he had become accustomed to doing over the last several years – which was Mr. K’s objective in this matter.
Matter of J.H.
Attorney Kim Trupiano applied to ICE for an immigration bond and was able to obtain the bond upon showing her client was eligible for relief against removal, was not a flight risk, did not pose a risk of danger, and was worthy of discretion.
Matter of C.L.
Attorney Kim Trupiano was able to advise this client’s criminal defense attorney with a plea deal that would not adversely affect the client’s legal permanent resident status as to making him deportable.
Matter of A.M-M.
Attorney Kim Trupiano applied to ICE for an immigration bond despite the fact he had been arrested for disorderly conduct and failure to obey command of police officer. She was able to obtain the bond upon showing her client was eligible for relief against removal, was not a flight risk, did not pose a risk of danger, and was worthy of discretion.
Matter of M.C.C-N.
Attorney Kim Trupiano applied to ICE for an immigration bond despite the fact her client here had been arrested for disorderly conduct and failure to obey command of police officer. Trupiano Law was able to obtain an immigration bond grant from ICE after showing her client was eligible for relief against removal, and after working with her client and her family to gather evidence that her client was not a flight risk, did not pose a risk of danger, and was worthy of discretion.
Matter of H. G.
Mr. G is a citizen of Mexico. He was convicted in Utah of domestic violence. Trupiano Law successfully argued for his release on bond by briefing that the language of the Utah State statute does not rise to the level of the federal equivalent of crimes of violence and crimes of moral turpitude, thus, he is not subject to mandatory detention.
Matter of A. E.
Mr. E. is a citizen of Mexico. He was convicted in Utah of three counts of violation of a protective order in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-108. The DHS attorney argued that he was ineligible for bond under INA 236(c) where the conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude and the violation of protective order made him ineligible for cancellation of removal. Trupiano law successfully argued for his release by producing the plea agreements to the Utah State protective order violation cases and showing that Mr. E’s convictions did not rise to the level of the federal immigration law version. That is, Mr. E’s sole convictions of violation of (an ex parte) protective order under Utah statute did not include facts in the record of a conviction for violating the parts of the protective order that protected against violence or threats of violence as required under immigration law. See INA § 237(a)(2)(E)(ii); 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii). That is, Trupiano Law demonstrated that Mr. E’s Utah state convictions for violation of a protective order were not deportable offenses under INA § 237(a)(2)(E)(ii). Thus, Mr. E was statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal under INA §240A(b); 8 U.S.C. §1229a(b). This grounds for adjustment to lawful permanent resident and cancellation of removal requires the following conditions to be fulfilled:
- Have ten (10) years continuance presence prior to being placed in removal proceedings;
- Be a person of good moral character under a balancing of the equities standard and in comportment with INA §101(f)(3);
- Have no convictions under INA §212(a), 237(a)(2) or 237(a)(3) [Failure to register and falsification of documents] or be eligible for an applicable waiver; and
- Establish that removal of alien would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a United States Citizen (“USC”) or Lawful Permanent Resident (“LPR”).
Matter of R. O. –
Mr. O is a native and citizen of Mexico. Mr. O had a conviction for a DUI a year before and had pled guilty to aggravated sexual assault. Immigration Bond was granted where Trupiano Law successfully argued that Mr. O. did not have any restricted “convictions” since he had only pled guilty to aggravated assault in a Utah criminal court. Mr. O had not yet been sentenced. Although the immigration judge denied bail the first request this was on the sole grounds he found Mr. O. dangerous. Trupiano Law then obtained withdrawal of pleas of guilt in criminal court to aggravated domestic violence assault, 3d Felony, to two counts of aggravated assault, Class A misdemeanor. (The pleas had been entered previously with a public defender, before Trupiano Law was hired.) Withdrawal of the pleas created new circumstances to warrant reconsideration of bond, and an immigration bond was finally granted.
Matter of Y. P. –
Ms. P is a native and citizen of Vietnam. She was convicted of marriage fraud in federal court, which can be considered a crime involving moral turpitude, a restricted conviction under INA § 236(c). Trupiano Law obtained bond and grant to pursue asylum where Ms. P despite her restrictive conviction of marriage fraud. Trupiano Law successfully argued that Ms. P is not subject to mandatory detention under INA § 236(c) where she was only sentenced to probation and thus was never “released.”
Matter of R. S. –
Mr. S was arrested on six counts of Unlawful sexual activity with a minor, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-401. Trupiano Law convinced the ICE officer, with a bond motion and evidentiary exhibits, that Mr. S was not subject to mandatory detention and was not a danger. ICE released Mr. S on a $5,000 bond.
Why Kim Trupiano Is Successful
- Aggressive — Although she works to find resolutions where they can be obtained, she prepares for trial, not for settlement. Kim exploits any hole in the other side’s case to gain advantage and maximize the positive outcomes for her clients.
- Thorough — Kim’s attention to detail is essential to challenging evidence in court proceedings and producing a strong evidentiary case for her client, including strongly-backed and detailed motions for relief.
- Compassionate — She eases client concerns by taking the time to explain clients’ rights, explore their options and keep them updated about progress in the case.
- Creative — Kim does her homework to raise new defense and affirmative relief theories, or to negotiate alternative resolutions and outcomes.