Immigration – Removal Proceedings and Inspection for Entry (or Reentry) to the United States
Victories for Trupiano Law in Immigration Removal Proceedings
If you are looking for a criminal defense attorney, immigration law attorney, and/or family law attorney 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 are examples where Ms. Trupiano was able to obtain termination of removal proceedings against legal permanent resident clients despite their criminal convictions and obtain their admission to the United States despite their criminal history:
- by clarifying or amending the convictions properly so they are not removable convictions or convictions that make the alien inadmissible to the United States,
- by winning on applications for certain waivers for the criminal convictions, and/or
- by simply showing through complex legal argument(s) that the state conviction does not make the alien removable or inadmissible to the United States under federal immigration law.
Below is a list, which is not all inclusive, of representative cases involving clients who were placed in removal proceedings or deferred inspection (upon reentry to the United States) in which removal was imminent and Trupiano Law obtained successful results.
Matter of P.W.
Attorney Kimberly J. Trupiano successfully terminated removal proceedings for a legal permanent resident client who had a Utah State conviction possession of controlled substance. Kim had worked with the State prosecutor to amend the conviction in such a way that the State prosecutor was satisfied as well as the State court judge. Then Kim filed a Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings, and the Department of Homeland Security agreed to dismiss the charge of removability.
Matter of J.G.
Attorney Kimberly J. Trupiano successfully terminated removal proceedings for a legal permanent resident client who had a Utah State conviction “sex abuse of a minor.” Kim had worked with the State prosecutor to amend the conviction in such a way that the State prosecutor was satisfied as well as the State court judge. Then Kim filed a Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings, and the Department of Homeland Security agreed to dismiss the charge of removability. Kim’s client was released from immigration custody.
Matter of O.C.
Attorney Kimberly J. Trupiano was able to stop removal of client by ICE based on prior order where order had been issued in absentia. Trupiano Law filed and was granted motion to vacate original removal order where it was issued against client when client had been placed in the custody of his adult brother while client was still 17 years old although removal order was issued a few months after client turned 18 years old. Because older brother did not ensure client’s attendance at removal proceedings hearing, extraordinary circumstances existed to excuse client’s failure to appear. Immigration judge granted motion to vacate removal order.
Matter of D.E.C. –
Attorney Kimberly J. Trupiano successfully terminated removal proceedings against Mr. E-C who was a legal permanent resident. Mr. E-C was charged with being removable under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) for having an aggravated felony, that is, under INA § 101(a)(43)(F), for having a conviction for a crime of violence with a sentence of one year or more. He was placed in mandatory immigration detention. Mr. E-C had an Idaho State conviction in violation of Idaho Code 18-901(a), (b) and 18-905(a) for “aggravated assault” that was charged in immigration proceedings as an “aggravated felony” under immigration law. Ms. Trupiano was able to successfully brief the law and convince the Department of Homeland Security attorney and the immigration judge that the Idaho State conviction for aggravated assault was not an aggravated felony under federal immigration law. His family was able to drive down from Idaho and pick him up from the Spanish Fork, Utah jail when he was released to reunify Mr. E-C with his fiancé and young son.
Matter of A.L.-
Attorney Kim Trupiano successfully terminated the removal proceedings against Mr. L. so he could keep his legal permanent resident status despite his Utah State conviction for aggravated assault. Ms. Trupiano had worked with the State prosecutor to have the state conviction amended and then was able to file a successful Motion to Terminate Removal proceedings in immigration court.
Matter of R.O.
Attorney Kimberly J. Trupiano represented this client in a criminal case where earlier he had pled guilty to aggravated assault without an attorney. Trupiano Law was able to have the plea withdrawn after having to argue the motion to withdraw the plea and show her client had involuntarily and unknowingly entered the plea based on the inadequate advisals during the entry of plea hearing. Kim continued to represent this client in removal proceedings to obtain an immigration bond for him and apply for his legal permanent resident status through an application for Cancellation of Removal.
Matter of O.P.
Criminal defense and immigration law attorney Kimberly J. Trupiano amended four of this client’s felony and Class A Misdemeanor convictions that had been crime involving moral turpitude convictions. She prepared a motion to terminate removal proceedings with a detailed memorandum of law and attached the appropriate documents from the newly amended record of conviction. She successfully argued that the amended convictions could not constitute deportable offenses. The Department of Homeland Security conceded and agreed to a motion to terminate removal proceedings. The immigration judge ordered removal proceedings to be terminated against her client and Mr. P. was released from immigration custody to continue to reside as a legal permanent resident in the United States.
Matter of Y.P.
Ms. Kim represented Ms. P. in removal proceedings and obtained a grant of asylum from Vietnam through the immigration judge. The Department of Homeland Security attorney appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which Kim was also able to win.
Matter of M.L.
Kim was able to show her client was eligible for Cancellation of Removal although the government attorney had indicated he thought her client had left the United States too many times to be able to show the 10-year presence in the United States. Kim obtained records from the Customs and Border Protection to show that her client had been in the United States for the length of time necessary.
Matter of J.L.
Kim amended some of this client’s felony and Class A Misdemeanor convictions that had been crime involving moral turpitude convictions. She prepared a motion to terminate removal proceedings and argued that the amended convictions could not constitute deportable offenses. The Department of Homeland Security conceded and agreed to a motion to terminate removal proceedings.
Matter of E.S.
Mr. S is an ethnic Ossetian and Georgian citizen from the separatist region of South Ossetia located in the Republic of Georgia. Ms. Trupiano was retained to work with the attorney of record on this matter. Ms. Trupiano successfully argued for Mr. S’s asylum on the basis that he was subject to past persecution on account of his nationality and membership in a particular social group. Mr. S experienced officially sanctioned job discrimination as a government employee for a period of twenty-two years and pressure from the Georgian government starting in 1990 to leave the country because he is a “non-Georgian.” When Georgia obtained independence in April 1991 from the Soviet Union Mr. S experienced a pattern and practice of government brutality. Since he did not leave Georgia after being threatened to leave, he was physically forced to participate in a war against his own ethnic group where he witnessed Georgian national guards commit brutal and atrocious acts, such as blowing up Ossetians’ homes, burning their villages, and beating up elderly persons, women, and children. He was forced to witness the bellies of Ossetian pregnant women being cut open after which the women were drowned in icy waters. He witnessed an Ossetian mother having to watch as the National Guard “cut out her son’s genitals and made [her] eat them” before she passed out. Ms. Trupiano successfully argued that, applying the law and facts of Woldemeskel v. INS, 257 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2001), the events that occurred to Mr. S and his family and fellow members of minority ethnic groups in Georgia constituted “persecution” for purposes of Mr. S’s obtaining refugee status and a grant of asylum or withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
Matter of D.B.
Mr. B is a native and citizen of Bosnia and has had refugee status in the United States for several years. He had convictions for
- One count of theft under Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-602
- One count of disorderly conduct under Utah Code Ann. § 76-9-102
- One count of interfering with lawful arrest under Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-305(2)
- Two counts of possession of alcohol by a minor under Utah Code Ann. § 32A-12-209.
Mr. B had left the United States for vacation in Europe. When he reentered it came to the attention of the Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) officer that Mr. B had some conviction that may make him inadmissible. Thus, he was paroled in temporarily subject to a deferred inspection. See 8 C.F.R. § 1235.2. Trupiano Law quickly gathered from the various criminal courts the requisite documents to demonstrate the facts and prepared a legal brief of the Utah state convictions. The CBP officer was convinced with Trupiano Law’s arguments that Mr. B was admissible notwithstanding his criminal convictions. Trupiano Law argued that all of the convictions except the one theft case were not crime involving moral turpitude under INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii). Trupiano Law then demonstrated that the one theft case constituted a petty crime exception under INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II). Thus, the CBP officer agreed to admit Mr. B back into the United States without any further incident. Without Trupiano Law’s help, Mr. B might have been arrested right there at the deferred inspection meeting and placed in mandatory detention and sent to appear before an immigration judge in removal proceedings.
Matter of A.E.-
Trupiano Law successfully argued that Mr. E’s Utah State convictions for violation of protective order did not qualify as the following restrictive conviction: “a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime.” INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) or as a violation of a protective order, also a removable offense. See INA § 212(a)(2)(E); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(E).
Trupiano Law successfully argued that Mr. E’s Utah State convictions for violation of protective order was not a removable criminal offense.
Matter of S.L.-
Trupiano Law successfully represented Mr. L. in removal proceedings to obtain for him his legal permanent resident status. Attorney Kimberly J. Trupiano was able to obtain an extreme hardship waiver for his two older Utah State convictions for theft by deception and gross lewdness. The immigration judge granted the waiver and granted the application for Mr. L’s adjustment of status to a legal permanent resident through his marriage to his United States citizen wife. Mr. L was released from custody to continue to live his life in the United States as a legal permanent resident with his wife and three children.
Matter of C.S.
Attorney Kim Trupiano was able to win on a Motion to Administratively Close Removal Proceedings against her client so that removal proceedings were stopped against her. Ms. S’s husband was pursuing his legal permanent resident status in removal proceedings with Ms. Trupiano as well, and so Ms. Trupiano was able to show the immigration judge that Ms. S should be able to stay in the United States and join her husband’s case (although Ms. S herself was not eligible for her legal permanent resident status in removal proceedings). Ms. Trupiano included much evidence and strong legal argument in her motion that showed Ms. S’s worthiness of this discretionary relief.
Matter of C.S.
Attorney Kim Trupiano was able to win on a Motion to Administratively Close Removal Proceedings against her client so that removal proceedings were stopped against her. Ms. S’s husband was pursuing his legal permanent resident status in removal proceedings with Ms. Trupiano as well, and the immigration judge agreed to close the removal case against her so that she would not be separated from her husband while he pursued his relief against removal.
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.