Removal Defense Attorney New York Cancellation Granted

The first respondent was a lawful permanent resident who had resided in New York for more than ten years and was placed in removal proceedings under INA §237(a)(2) following a criminal conviction.

Although the conviction did not constitute an aggravated felony under INA §101(a)(43), it triggered removability and required immediate defensive litigation.

The defense strategy focused on statutory eligibility for Cancellation of Removal for Certain Permanent Residents under INA §240A(a).

Evidence was presented demonstrating continuous residence, lawful admission, and equities favoring discretion, including family hardship and rehabilitation.

The second respondent was an undocumented individual who had previously received an in absentia removal order under INA §240(b)(5).

Because the order was final, the case required a motion to reopen based on lack of proper notice and, alternatively, changed circumstances under 8 C.F.R. §1003.23.

The removal defense attorney demonstrated that the Notice to Appear failed to comply with statutory notice requirements and that exceptional circumstances justified reopening.

Once reopened, the respondent became eligible for Cancellation of Removal for Non Permanent Residents under INA §240A(b).

Under INA §240A(a), a lawful permanent resident may seek cancellation if they meet residency, admission, and discretionary standards.

The court evaluated statutory eligibility and weighed adverse factors against positive equities.

Documentary evidence and testimony established that removal would cause disproportionate hardship to U.S. Citizen family members residing in New York.

The Immigration Judge granted cancellation and terminated removal proceedings.

For the undocumented respondent, INA §240A(b) required proof of ten years’ continuous physical presence, good moral character, and exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to qualifying relatives.

Detailed affidavits and corroborating evidence demonstrated qualifying hardship to U.S. Citizen children enrolled in New York public schools.

The Immigration Judge exercised discretion favorably, granted relief, and vacated the prior removal order.

Each case required tailored evidentiary submissions addressing statutory elements and discretionary factors.

Live testimony, sworn declarations, and documentary exhibits were presented in accordance with immigration court rules.

The court found the evidence credible and legally sufficient under applicable precedent.