Florida Immigration Law

Judge Mahlon Hanson of Miami Immigration Court has a documented track record of granting less than three percent of asylum cases that are presented to him. Our firm's client, a Venezuelan poll worker, recently became one of the statistically few who receive a grant of asylum from Judge Hanson. Our client was first threatened and then attacked by forces loyal to President Chavez following her political activities for the Democratic Action party. One of the key factors in this hard fought victory was the testimony of our client's therapist, who stated that the client exhibited symptoms consistent with post-traumatic distress syndrome. Expert testimony of this nature can be an effective tool in presenting an asylum case when appropriate.

Our firm's client, a Brazilian homeopathic physician, was granted a national interest waiver, which allows her to apply for permanent residence without a labor certification. We successfully argued that her services have more than merely local value because homeopathic formulas she developed are being manufactured and distributed nationwide.

As a result of a two-year old drug possession conviction our client, a U.S. permanent resident for many years, was detained and placed in removal proceedings after returning from a trip to his native Vietnam. Because he was an "arriving alien" he was not eligible for release on bond. However, our firm obtained a hearing date for cancellation of removal within a few weeks after his detention. We carefully constructed his removal case, using testimony of family members and documentary evidence. The Immigration Judge granted cancellation. Our client was released and his permanent residency was restored to him.

Our client was placed in removal proceedings and charged with removability for a crime of domestic violence based on a Florida conviction for simple battery. The Immigration Judge granted our motion to terminate the proceedings. We persuaded the judge not to consider facts set forth in the arrest report in determining whether the offense constituted a crime of violence, and to limit her inquiry to consideration of the charging document (the information) and the judgement of conviction. In addition, the judge agreed with our argument that since a Florida simple battery can be accomplished by a mere unauthorized touching, the offense categorically does not rise to the level of a crime of violence as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act. This was a hard fought victory, as the case was complicated by inconsistencies in the applicable federal court decisions.

Un juez de inmigración de Miami recientemente otorgó asilo politico a nuestro cliente. Arriesgándose a sí mismo y a su familia, nuestro cliente publicó material anti-gobierno en su sitio web de alto perfil donde daba noticias, información y opinión sobre eventos actuales en Venezuela. Nuestro cliente continuó publicando el sitio web aún después de recibir amenazas de muerte de parte de las fuerzas pro-Chavez. Felicitamos a nuestro cliente y le deseamos la mejor de la suerte en los Estados Unidos.

A Miami immigration judge recently granted asylum to our client. At great risk to himself and his family, our client published anti-government material on a high profile website that delivered news, information and opinion about current events in Venezuela. Our client continued to publish the website even after receiving death threats from pro-Chavez forces. We congratulate our client and wish him the best of luck in the United States.

On October 22, 2008, David B. Pakula was a featured speaker on a panel of immigration law experts during a teleconference presented by ILW.com. The topic of Mr. Pakula's presentation was federal court litigation in PERM cases. Mr. Pakula spoke to an audience of immigration attorneys about the procedures and legal issues that arise when seeking federal court review of adverse PERM decisions by the U.S. Department of Labor.

In 2002, our client pleaded no contest to possession of a small quantity of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. In 2007, he was denied adjustment of status based on marriage to a U.S. citizen, because no waiver of inadmissibility was available for the paraphernalia charge. We filed a motion for post-conviction relief based on the trial court's failure to advise our client of the possible deportation consequences of his plea. The trial judge recently granted our motion and vacated the paraphernalia conviction. The prosecution nolle prossed that charge. Now, our client will be able to adjust status.

Our client is a Brazilian physician who studied and practiced classical homeopathic medicine in Brazil. She distinguished herself in the field of homeopathic treatment of baldness, having written a book and several scholarly articles on the topic, and having lectured at international conferences. The case was somewhat challenging, because homeopathic medicine is not widely considered to be a traditional scientific discipline within academic circles. Nonetheless, our O-1 petition was successful, and our client now practices as a homeopathic consultant in the United States. Our firm has extensive experience with O-1 petitions for outstanding scientific researchers. If you think you may qualify for an O-1, please call our office - 954-217-5123 - or email us - dpakula@infionline.net - for a free initial consultation.

Recent independent reports by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) and the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) show that significant disparities continue to exist in U.S. asylum adjudications. Incredibly, asylum results vary significantly depending on the city in which the claim is adjudicated, the immigration judge presiding over the case, and other factors that should have nothing to do with the merit of an asylum claim. A TRAC report on asylum adjudications from 2002-07 reflects that the average rate of asylum denials in New York was 38.3%, while the rate in Miami was 78.5%. The national average was 58.8%. Denial rates also varied wildly from one judge to another. In Miami, the denial rates range from a low of 21.3% for Judge Sandra Coleman, to a high of 97.1% for Judge Mahlon Hanson. The TRAC reports states: "The wide range of disparities in how asylum matters are decided — regardless of the perspective from which they are examined – points strongly to a dysfunctional system where the law is not the law." Powerful words that describe what we know from our own experience to be the sad and painful truth. Despite ongoing reports of this nature, we have not seen any changes in the asylum adjudication system in recent years. When will this injustice end?



Read on for links to the GAO and TRAC reports.