AC21 Portability Admin. Closure Victory in NY

David K.S. Kim writes: "I wanted to share with you a recent IJ decision administratively closing the removal proceedings of my client, post-BIA remand, involving complicated fact pattern and legal issues, after many years of litigation, so that he can litigate in a federal district court to challenge the revocation of the previously approved I-140 petitions so that he can pursue adjustment of status, pursuant to INA Section 204(j) for portability and "interfiling" of the two I-140 petitions, once he is successful in the federal district court litigation. My client is the beneficiary of two approved I-140 petitions, both of which have been revoked for alleged fraud by USCIS. There simply is no fraud on my client's part, as he worked for the petitioners and substitute petitioners, pursuant to AC21 portability codified at 204(j), and we submitted clear evidence supporting that. However, the I-140 petitions were processed by an immigration agency that had been indicted for immigration fraud in a federal district court. Although there was no criminal prosecution of the agency and its president since they settled the case as a civil settlement, USCIS has adopted a blanket position that all labor certs and I-140 petitions processed by this agency must be fraudulent and the beneficiaries also committed fraud. I have represented many individuals who were victims of this agency. This case is filled with many complicated legal issues for employment-based adjustment of status, Section 245(k), interfiling of multiple I-140 petitions/I-485 applications, beneficiary's standing in challenging the revocation of approved I-140 petitions, etc. You should read the BIA remand decision first, and then the IJ's post-BIA remand decision, which would give you a whole picture. Hopefully, our colleagues may be able to utilize this case for similar issues they are litigating before EOIR."