Jue S., Daly City, CA

If you are looking for THE BEST OF THE BEST lawyer for immigration cases, you found one. Rosy is very knowledgeable, resourceful, helpful and most importantly very caring. She understands and sympathizes our feelings and what we are going through. She put enormous effort to work on my case. She spent time with my family and addressed all questions thoroughly. I have never ever met any lawyer who works as hard as Rosy does for her clients. We are so grateful and blessed to find Rosy. Rosy is the best gift God sent to us.

Phoi B.

Rosy has been such a blessing to myself and my family. We were in a desperate situation and were fortunate enough to meet Rosy, just as we were running out of time and hope. We have a unique and complicated set of immigration cases, and prior to meeting Rosy, constantly felt confused, misinformed, anxious, worried, and impatient. Rosy mitigated those feelings by addressing all of our questions and concerns honestly and promptly, helping us to feel prepared, calm, and assured. What really blew us away was her compassion, understanding and genuine concern for my family. Needless to say, we hired Rosy to be our advocate and she’s worked relentlessly to help my family gain citizenship.

Rosy is extremely knowledgeable and intelligent. This is reflected in her ability to think quickly off her feet and provide us with options when we felt like our backs were up against a wall. This whole process has not been easy, but Rosy has made it as seamless as possible for my family and we feel so grateful to have her by our side.

David G., South San Francisco, CA

There are a lot of immigration lawyers out there. Some are good. Only a select few are great. Rosy is definitely one of those select few.
I have been trying to get a permanent residency for my wife. It was a battle for 14 years. We went through IJ, BIA, 9th Circuit, deportation proceeding. We have consulted different attorneys and hired some to represent us. At the end we lost all of it. We got ICE agents knocking on our door on three separate occasions. No fun.

Then we met Rosy. Right from the first meeting, we knew she’s different. You can tell she does this out of her passion. After reviewing our case, she gave an honest opinion regarding our situation and provided some options. We were discouraged at first. However after we went home, we realized that she was giving a hard truth but truth nonetheless. She was more interested in helping us than whether or not we retain her.
Finally we decided to contact her again and have her represented us. She did a excellent job in updating us every step of the way. Answered every question and updating us when new immigration policy was enacted that will benefit us.
She was able to reopen our case, terminate the deportation proceeding. Two weeks ago my wife received her permanent residency.

You want a lawyer who will fight tooth and nail for you. Don’t contact any other lawyer before you talked to her first.

Beware, she will be honest with you and might tell you things that you don’t want to hear about your case. But know this, those are honest comments that came from 10+ years of experience. Wait a minute, isn’t that what you hired a lawyer for? Not to get a sugarcoated comment just to get you sign a retainer.

Jas S., San Francisco, CA

Rosy gave us hope when we were at the end of our rope. We’d been screwed over by another immigration lawyer, who had failed to file paperwork on time, lied to us, and generally messed things up; I was out of status and we expected to get the removal notice in the mail at any moment.

After the other lawyer stopped returning our calls, we decided to find someone else. We found Rosy Cho. Her patience was boundless, her responses immediate.

Six months later, it’s all sorted. I got my green card earlier this week.

I can’t imagine we’d be in this situation now without her help.

Another District Court Victory against Unlawful Mandatory Detention without Bond Review

Yet another federal district court judge has determined that holding certain immigrants in detention without a bond hearing violates federal law.  The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Asian Americans Advancing Justice–Asian Law Caucus, and lead counsel Keker Van Nest, LLP, has challenged the federal government’s practice of arresting and detaining certain immigrants for months at a time without providing an opportunity to demonstrate that they are not a danger to the community or pose a flight risk.

United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of California, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has joined the majority of district courts that have found that the practice of mandatory detention without bond violates the very statute the government has relied upon to justify its practice.  Specifically, Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruled that the statute that subjects immigrants detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “when released” from criminal custody to mandatory detention without a bond hearing only applies to immigrants who are detained by ICE immediately at the time of their release from criminal custody, and not at any time thereafter.  The named plaintiffs were picked up by ICE months, sometimes years, after their release from criminal custody.   The government had argued that “when released” should be read to mean “any time after release.”  The Judge rightfully rejected such an unnatural reading and held that “‘when released” means means what it says,”–that is, at the time an immigrant is released from custody.  The Judge’s Order granting a preliminary injunction and certification of the proposed class and denying the government’s motion to dismiss the suit is worth reading– it provides a clear and concise overview of the law at issue and is a model of thoughtful analysis.

Those of you who have been following the story of my detained grandmother client in various news outlets or on my Facebook page may recognize the photo in the ACLU press release.  That is her in the photo.  She was also wrongly held subject to mandatory detention by the government and the ACLU was motivated in part to bring this class action suit based on her experience and the successful writ of habeas corpus challenge this office brought together with the ACLU Northern California.

While her 2 plus years in immigration detention was unconscionable, it has wrought some positive changes in the system.  Although she has been released from immigration detention, her case remains pending in immigration court.  It is possible her case may yet inspire more positive changes.

Lindsi K., San Francisco, CA

My wife and I met with several immigration attorneys and chose Rosy to represent us, after being referred by a friend who was a client of Rosy’s. We chose Rosy without hesitation – she was super knowledgeable, professional and compassionate to our situation and timeline.

Although our case was very straightforward, Rosy made sure we understood the entire process, and was a calming presence during the entire nerve-wracking journey. If we hadn’t taken our time gathering documentation, our process would have been about 12 weeks, start to finish. It helped having an experienced attorney (Rosy) in our corner, and I would recommend her to anyone in need of an immigration lawyer.

Mi esposa y yo nos reunimos con varios abogados de migración, y decidimos que Rosy nos representara ya que una amiga que fue su cliente nos la recomendó. Escogimos a Rosy sin pensarlo mucho, porque nos dimos cuenta que tenía total conocimiento en su área, era muy profesional y fue muy comprensiva con nuestra situación y nuestro tiempo.

Aunque nuestro caso no era realmente complicado, Rosy se aseguró de que entendiéramos cada paso del proceso de migración, y siempre se mantuvo calmada ante lo que pudiera causarnos alguna angustia en el proceso. Si nosotras no hubiéramos tomado tanto tiempo en reunir los documentos, nuestro proceso hubiera tomado cerca de 12 semanas. Nos ayudo mucho haber tenido una abogada con tanta experiencia de nuestro lado, y yo la recomiendo altamente a cualquier persona que necesite una abogada de migración.

Good News for Provisional Waiver Applicants

In an email sent to the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) yesterday, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced an important change in the way they consider and adjudicate applications for a provisional unlawful presence waiver (“I-601A”). Since the launch of the new program, USCIS had been denying applications where it had “reason to believe” that the applicant may be subject to another ground of inadmissibility beside the unlawful presence ground. In practice, this mostly affected applicants with any prior criminal offense.

Not all criminal offenses in fact render an applicant inadmissible– for example, a minor offense that is not considered to be a crime involving moral turpitude or that would fall under the petty offense exception does not trigger inadmissibility. However, USCIS had been blanketly denying applications by anyone with a criminal history without considering whether the criminal offense in fact rendered the person inadmissible. This policy had up until now excluded many applicants with minor offenses like a single shoplifting conviction who were nevertheless admissible as immigrants.

Thankfully, the USCIS has reconsidered its policy and has announced that it will now take the additional step of considering whether a prior criminal offense falls under the petty offense exception or is otherwise not considered a crime involving moral turpitude. Where the prior criminal offense is deemed to not render the applicant inadmissible, USCIS will proceed to adjudicate the I-601A. USCIS has further announced that it will reopen, on its own motion, all prior I-601A applications that it had denied based solely on the existence of a prior criminal offense and it is determined that the criminal offense is a not a ground of inadmissibility, will proceed to adjudicate the I-601A application.

For information about the Provisional Waiver process, check the USCIS website.

Looking Ahead to the DACA Renewal Process

USCIS has issued a draft of the new Form I-821D to be used to renew Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status and has invited comments and proposals from the legal community.  Once USCIS  issues the final version of the  form, current DACA grantees may use the form to renew DACA status.  Requests for renewal may not be made on the current form that is available on the USCIS website.

Until USCIS releases the final renewal form, it is impossible to state with certainty what the DACA renewal process will exactly entail.  However, here is what we do know so far:

  • Applications to renew DACA and employment authorization may be filed up to 4 months (120 days) before the date of expiration of current DACA status (that is–4 months prior to the expiration of your employment authorization document).  Applications filed before the 4 months will be rejected.
  • The application fee will remain the same – that is, $465.00.
  • You must provide evidence that you have maintained continuous residence in the United States since you applied for DACA status.
  • You will not need to re-submit documents you already submitted with your previous DACA request that was approved.  You will need to submit any new records pertaining to a criminal record or removal proceedings.

  • You must not have left the United States since your DACA approval unless you applied for and were granted permission to travel (“advance parole”).
  • If at the time that you applied for DACA you were “still in school,” you must now provide evidence that you either still remain in school or that you have completed the course of study.  If you are currently enrolled in a GED or some equivalent program, you will need to provide evidence that the program is publicly funded.
  • If you have been arrested and/or charged with a crime since you obtained DACA status, your ability to renew DACA status may be jeopardized.  If you have a new arrest, you should consult an immigration attorney as soon as possible to determine your eligibility to renew DACA status.  You will need to provide certified records of your arrest or conviction.  If you do not have the certified records, you should take immediate steps to obtain them.

Since USCIS will not be accepting renewal application prior to the 120 days before your current employment authorization expires, one can only hope that USCIS will adjudicate the renewal application within that time period.  They have not announced whether they will issue an interim employment authorization if it takes them longer to adjudicate the application.  Therefore, every person who has been granted DACA should renew their  DACA status as soon as they become eligible to do so.