As an immigration and criminal attorney, I have had many successes. Rather than try to list all of them, I can tell you that the common thread in all of these cases is that I always fought as hard as I could for my clients. I am not a “good sport” when it comes to losing cases and so I make sure that always go the “extra mile” for my clients.
With immigration law, I have reopened scores of cases by filing joint motions to reopen. Typically such cases entailed a client who received a deportation or removal order, and even lost their appeal at the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). However, because they were eligible to have their cases reopened by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, (ICE) under a provision in the immigration law, INA 245(i), I was able to reopen their cases and get them legal permanent status. In some instances, I some of my client’s children were also able to get their green cards as well because they were derivatives of their parent’s application.
In other instances, I was able to overturn adverse decisions by immigration judges with the Board of Immigration Appeals and USCIS.
I have filed dozens of successful motions to reconsider adverse decisions by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) for his clients. This includes “intent to deny” letters. I have successfully litigated countless cases in immigration court. Many of thee cases were ones that involved political asylum, convention against torture, withholding of removal, INA 212(c), 212(h) and 212(i) waivers, adjustment of status, cancellation of removal, and prosecutorial discretion.
The following cases are a few of many that were successfully litigated by our firm:
POLITICAL ASYLUM, WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL AND CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE.
Convention Against Torture (CAT).
In 2012, I won a difficult case for a Chinese detainee who had a drug conviction. He did not qualify for any relief such as political asylum and withholding of removal. He did qualify for Convention Against Torture, (CAT). CAT cases are very hard to win. The standard that a client has to overcome is very high and based on facts rather than a “chain of assumptions.” I had to convince a tough immigration judge that it is more likely than not that my client would be tortured if he were returned to China. My client’s testimony would not have met the high standard of proof needed to win CAT. Solid objective proof was needed to win this case.
Through research, I found proof that China does not recognize the doctrine of “double jeopardy.” In other words, China will punish one of its citizens all over again, even though they were convicted and punished in another country, including the U.S.
I then found the provisions in Chinese law that stated my client would be executed in China. I found an expert in Chinese law, college professor in Asian Affairs, to testify and backup this research.
The Immigration Judge questioned whether execution amounts to torture. After all, a bullet to the head is instantaneous. I argued that knowing of your imminent execution amounts to severe mental torture.
I then presented State Department Reports and other publications to prove that torture in China is widespread and that if my client were to be removed to China, he would be immediately seized and detained by the authorities upon his arrival. Once in custody, he would be beaten. There were two reasons why I knew this. First, U.S. State Department Reports and other respected publications supported this assertion, and two, my client was beaten before by the authorities when he was arrested in China in the past. In fact, his brother was in China during the police beating and he testified about it in Court under oath. In the end, the Judge granted CAT relief. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision.
Mr. Kapikian has litigated many political asylum cases. In two cases involving client’s from Africa, Mr. Kapikian was able to convince the court that his clients were tortured in their native countries. In one case, Mr. Kapikian arranged for a psychologist to testify that his client was traumatized by experiences in his country. The client witnessed executions and narrowly missed being shot to death after he narrowly escaped from his abductors. The psychologist was necessary because the man was too traumatized to effectively speak on his own behalf. The psychologist’s testimony made a critical difference in the case. Thankfully, the court granted political asylum.
In another case in 2012, Mr. Kapikian won political asylum for a Chinese couple who fled China because of oppressive family planning laws there. The wife was savagely forced to miscarry her fetus by the Chinese government. Her internal injuries were so severe, that shortly after she gave birth to another child in the U.S., it died. The child was under-weight and had various health problems. It was the opinion of the woman’s doctor’s that the death of the infant was likely due to the mother’s frail condition after the forced abortion in China. The judge thankfully granted political asylum in this case.
ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS
Some cases are less dramatic but no less significant. One client, a US Citizen husband, applied filed an immigrant visa petition (I-130) for his wife, but the application was denied at an denied interview in the Guangzhou American Embassy. Mr. Kapikian responded to an intent revoke to from the USICS on November 2012. The case was approved on February 2013 and the matter was forwarded back to US Embassy for a rescheduled interview. The wife was granted visa on April 2013.