Precedent Establishing Published Decisions:

1. Li v. Chertoff, Civil Action No. 06-10963-JLT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42518, June 12, 2007.
   • An individual who was a Legal Permanent Resident in the U.S. applied for naturalization with the USCIS (U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services). The alien went to Canada to pursue an opportunity to study in a university's dental program and attempted to complete her naturalization application before her departure date, but it was unreasonably delayed by the USCIS. The alien obtained resident status in Canada but always maintained her Legal Permanent Resident status in the U.S. We argued that despite the fact she was temporarily residing in Canada she was still eligible to be granted citizenship in the U.S. and the court found in our favor.
2. Osunsanya v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs., CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-10625-RWZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9474, February 12, 2007.
   • A plaintiff filed a writ of mandamus against the U.S.C.I.S. (U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services) because it was taking more than 2 years to adjudicate his green card application (immigration has to adjudicate applications in a timely manner). After he filed his complaint, he alleged that USCIS threatened his wife and coerced her into signing documents that provided the grounds for the denial of his residency application. After denying his residency application, immigration moved to dismiss his law suit, stating that the court no longer had jurisdiction to review the matter because his application had been denied and therefore the adjudication was complete. Our office filed an opposition to immigration’s motion dismiss and convinced the court that because the denial was allegedly based on improper government conduct, it is invalid and the District Court has jurisdiction to review the matter. The court ruled in our favor.
3. Commonwealth v. Todd, 1999 Mass. Super. LEXIS 572 (Mass. Super. Ct. Dec. 30, 1999).
   • A restraining order was obtained against a defendant; however, the order was never served on him. Subsequently, the defendant and two friends, took his child without permission, and attempted to return to Florida with his child. Our office filed a motion to dismiss charges related to the violation of the restraining order, since there was no evidence that the restraining order had been served on our client. The court found in our favor, because the grand jury heard no evidence relating to defendant's knowledge of the terms of the restraining order, the evidence was insufficient to sustain the indictment for violation of a restraining order. (Mass. Gen. Laws chapter 209A, § 7.)
4. Krazoun v. Ashcroft, No. 02-2291, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, 350 F.3d 208; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 23992, November 25, 2003.
   • An alien who was deported from the United States, subsequently married a U.S. citizen. He applied to have his deportation case reopened based upon his marriage and the Board of Immigration appeals denied his request. This denial was appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and the court ruled that the denial of an alien’s motion to reopen deportation proceedings based upon marriage to a U.S. Citizen is only proper if (1) the alien fails to establish the bona fides of the marriage pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a) or (2) if in its discretion the government’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious nor predicated upon a misinterpretation of applicable law.

Other Important Decisions:

Note: RULES OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.

5. Sandhu v. Gonzales, No. 05-2435, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, 185 Fed. Appx. 4; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 15714, June 22, 2006.
6. Osorno v. Gonzales, No. 05-1279, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 6768, March 10, 2006.
7. Mana v. Gonzales, No. 04-1599, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, 128 Fed. Appx. 167; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 8292, May 11, 2005.
8. Caballero v. Gonzales, No. 04-1542, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, 130 Fed. Appx. 487; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 8291, May 11, 2005.