My firm just had an interesting immigration court victory that I thought I would share. The case was handled by my Partner, and father, Robert D. Kolken.
Our client is a Canadian businessman. Twenty-five years ago when he was 18, he was convicted of a minor crime in Canada, notwithstanding the fact that the crime was actually committed by his friend and was reported to the police by our client. His sentence was a small fine. U.S. Customs and Border Protection claimed that the conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude which barred him from the United States. At this point we were hired to represent the client.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection would not change their position, despite our attempts to convince them otherwise. We then had an Immigration Court proceeding instituted in order to have an Immigration Judge decide whether the client was admissible. We tried the case and won. However, the Government appealed.
The Board of Immigration Appeals sustained the Government’s appeal and remanded the case with specific instructions. We tried the case a second time. Because of the instructions of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Judge was required to rule in favor of the Government. This time we appealed.
On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals reconsidered their earlier decision and remanded the case for a third trial without the instructions. The third time around we were again successful and the proceeding was terminated in our client’s favor. We are hopeful that the Government will not appeal a second time.
The moral of the story is that if you are right and the Government is wrong, you are able to obtain an appropriate disposition under our system of justice.