Marina Shepelsky

Why Hiring a New Lawyer to Strengthen a Previously Filed VAWA Case Can Make a Major Difference

A VAWA case prepared by an inexperienced attorney, notario, paralegal, or document preparer may contain serious weaknesses. The personal declaration may be too short, the abuse may not be properly explained, important evidence may be missing, or the filing may contain mistakes and inconsistencies.

When the case is still pending, an experienced immigration lawyer may be able to submit a detailed amendment or supplemental filing to correct, clarify, and substantially strengthen the case. Although no attorney can guarantee approval, properly fixing the case may significantly improve the applicant’s chances.

Advantages of Amending and Expanding the VAWA Case

1. Identifying weaknesses before USCIS makes a decision

Shepelsky Law can review the entire filing to determine what was omitted, poorly explained, unsupported, or legally incorrect. Addressing these problems while the case is pending may be better than waiting for a Request for Evidence, Notice of Intent to Deny, or denial.

2. Preparing a detailed and persuasive personal declaration

The applicant’s declaration is often one of the most important parts of a VAWA case. A new lawyer can help the applicant clearly explain:

How the relationship began;
Why the marriage was entered into in good faith;
How the abuse developed;
Specific incidents of physical, emotional, psychological, financial, sexual, or immigration-related abuse;
The abuser’s pattern of control and manipulation;
Why the applicant remained in the relationship or had difficulty leaving; and
How the abuse affected the applicant and the applicant’s children.
3. Correcting mistakes and explaining inconsistencies

A weak filing may contain incorrect dates, incomplete answers, translation problems, or statements that conflict with other immigration applications. These issues should not be ignored or hidden. A carefully prepared amendment can identify the mistakes, provide truthful corrections, and explain why the errors occurred.

USCIS evaluates whether the evidence is sufficiently detailed and internally and externally consistent, so unexplained contradictions can create credibility concerns. (USCIS)

4. Proving every required element of the VAWA case

A prior preparer may focus only on the abuse and fail to document the other legal requirements. A stronger filing can provide evidence of:

The abuser’s U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent resident status;
The qualifying marital or family relationship;
A good-faith marriage;
Shared residence with the abuser;
Battery or extreme cruelty;
The applicant’s good moral character; and
Any other eligibility requirements that apply to the case.
USCIS requires the self-petitioner to establish the qualifying relationship and all applicable eligibility requirements, not merely that problems existed in the marriage. (USCIS)

5. Adding important supporting evidence

A new lawyer can help identify and organize evidence that was not included in the original submission, such as:

Police reports and protective orders;
Medical and psychological records;
Photographs, text messages, emails, and voicemails;
Financial records showing economic control;
Statements from relatives, friends, neighbors, coworkers, or counselors;
Shelter, social-service, or domestic-violence program records;
Evidence of shared residence;
Evidence that the marriage was genuine; and
Records showing the abuser’s threats concerning immigration status.
VAWA applicants may submit any relevant credible evidence, and USCIS must consider qualifying evidence even when traditional documentation is unavailable. USCIS, however, retains discretion to decide the credibility and weight of the evidence. (USCIS)

6. Providing a clear legal explanation of extreme cruelty

Abuse under VAWA is not limited to physical violence. A properly prepared legal submission can explain how threats, humiliation, isolation, financial control, coercion, intimidation, immigration threats, sexual abuse, stalking, and other controlling conduct may form a pattern of extreme cruelty.

7. Organizing the case so the USCIS officer can understand it

Even a truthful case can be difficult to approve when the documents are disorganized or the connection between the evidence and the legal requirements is unclear. Shepelsky Law can prepare a structured legal brief, evidence index, detailed declaration, and supporting exhibits that present the history of the relationship and abuse in a logical manner.

8. Explaining why evidence is unavailable

Many survivors do not call the police, seek medical treatment, or tell others about the abuse. An experienced lawyer can explain why certain records do not exist and present alternative evidence instead of allowing the absence of a police report or protective order to appear unexplained.

9. Reducing the risk created by an unqualified preparer

Paralegals and document preparers cannot independently provide legal advice or develop a legal strategy. A licensed immigration lawyer can evaluate eligibility, identify possible immigration consequences, communicate with USCIS, and take responsibility for presenting the legal arguments in the case.

10. Creating a stronger record for any future proceedings

A comprehensive supplemental submission may also create a clearer record if USCIS later issues an RFE, NOID, or adverse decision. The applicant’s corrections, explanations, evidence, and legal arguments will already be documented in the immigration file.

The Earlier Filing Cannot Simply Be Erased

Amending a VAWA case does not remove the original application from the USCIS record. A new lawyer must work carefully with everything that was previously submitted. Any incorrect or inconsistent information should be corrected honestly and supported with a reasonable explanation.

Trying to conceal a prior statement or completely changing the story without explanation may create additional credibility problems. The purpose of an amendment is to present the complete truth, correct genuine errors, fill evidentiary gaps, and explain the case more clearly.

How Shepelsky Law Can Help

Shepelsky Law can conduct a complete review of the pending VAWA filing, identify legal and evidentiary weaknesses, prepare an expanded personal declaration, collect additional supporting documentation, correct prior mistakes, and submit a comprehensive supplemental filing to USCIS.

A weak case does not always have to remain weak. When problems are identified early and addressed truthfully and thoroughly, an experienced VAWA attorney SHEPELSKY LAW GROUP will be able to transform an incomplete filing into a much stronger and more persuasive case.

Schedule a Consultation With Shepelsky Law

If your VAWA case was prepared by an inexperienced lawyer, paralegal, notario, consultant, or document preparer, do not wait for USCIS to issue an RFE, NOID, or denial before seeking help. Contact Shepelsky Law to schedule a confidential consultation and begin the process of reviewing, correcting, expanding, and strengthening your pending VAWA case.

Call Shepelsky Law at (718) 769-6352 or visit www.ShepelskyLaw.com to schedule your consultation.

2 days ago | [YT] | 1

Marina Shepelsky

Trump Administration Expands Public Charge Screening for Green Card Applicants

The Trump administration has finalized a major change to the public charge rules used in certain Green Card cases. The new rule is scheduled to be published on July 20, 2026, and is expected to take effect on September 18, 2026.

Here is the USCIS post about this: www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/us-citizenshi…

The new policy rescinds the narrower public charge regulations adopted in 2022 under Biden’s administration, and gives immigration officers much broader discretion to evaluate whether an applicant is likely to depend on government assistance in the future.

Although some reports describe the change as a return to the 2019 public charge rule, the new regulation does not simply reinstate the exact 2019 framework. Instead, it removes many of the definitions and restrictions contained in the 2022 rule and permits officers to consider a wider range of facts and public benefits on a case-by-case basis.

What Is the Public Charge Rule?

Under U.S. immigration law, certain applicants may be denied admission or Adjustment of Status if immigration authorities determine that they are likely at any time to become a public charge.

A public charge determination is prospective. USCIS does not look only at whether the applicant currently receives government assistance. The officer evaluates whether the person is likely to become dependent on public resources in the future.

The government must consider several factors, including:

The applicant’s age;
Health and medical conditions;
Family size and family circumstances;
Income, assets and financial resources;
Education, employment history and professional skills;
Prior or current use of means-tested public benefits; and
A required Form I-864 Affidavit of Support.
No single factor should automatically determine the outcome. However, the new rule gives officers greater discretion to decide how much weight to assign to each fact.

What Is Changing?

Under the 2022 rule, USCIS generally focused on public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutional care paid for by the government.

The new rule removes those narrow limitations. Beginning on the effective date, USCIS officers may consider an applicant’s application for, approval for, certification for or receipt of any means-tested public benefit as part of the totality of the circumstances.

Benefits that may receive increased scrutiny can include:

Medicaid;
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, commonly called SNAP or food stamps;
Children’s Health Insurance Program benefits;
Housing vouchers and subsidized housing;
Supplemental Security Income;
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families;
State or local cash assistance;
Government-funded long-term institutional care; and
Other federal, state or local means-tested programs.
The rule does not establish a simple formula under which receiving a particular benefit automatically results in denial. It also does not adopt the former 2019 rule’s specific 12-month-within-36-month threshold.

Instead, the officer will evaluate the type of benefit, the reason it was received, the amount and duration of assistance, the applicant’s current circumstances and the likelihood of future dependence.

When Will the New Rule Apply?

The new standard is expected to apply to:

Applications for Adjustment of Status postmarked or electronically filed on or after September 18, 2026; and
Applications for admission made on or after that date.
Adjustment applications properly filed before the effective date should generally continue to be evaluated under the 2022 regulatory framework.

The rule is also prospective in its treatment of benefits that were previously excluded. Benefits such as SNAP, ordinary Medicaid, food assistance and housing assistance received before the effective date should generally continue to be treated under the 2022 rule.

However, cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense received before the effective

date may still be relevant because those benefits were already considered under the existing rule.

Does Receiving Medicaid or Food Assistance Automatically Prevent a Green Card?

No. Receipt of a public benefit does not automatically establish that someone is likely to become a public charge.

USCIS must still evaluate the complete circumstances of the case. For example, temporary Medicaid coverage during a period of unemployment may be viewed differently from a long history of dependence combined with no employment prospects, limited resources and serious health concerns.

Applicants may be able to present favorable evidence, such as:

Stable employment;
A strong employment history;
Professional licenses or degrees;
Health insurance;
Savings and other assets;
A sufficient household income;
Evidence that prior benefit use was temporary;
A credible employment offer;
Financial assistance from a qualified sponsor; and
A properly completed and sufficient Affidavit of Support.
A sufficient Form I-864 remains important, but it may not eliminate all public charge concerns by itself.

Will Benefits Received by U.S. Citizen Children Count Against Their Parents?

Generally, USCIS will not treat benefits received by a family member as though they were received directly by the Green Card applicant.

For example, a U.S. citizen child’s Medicaid, CHIP or food benefits ordinarily should not automatically be counted as benefits received by the immigrant parent.

However, the family’s financial circumstances may still be relevant. USCIS may consider evidence that:

The applicant’s income is low enough that dependents qualify for assistance;
A family member’s benefits are being used as the applicant’s source of financial support; or
The household’s overall circumstances indicate that the applicant is likely to depend on government assistance.
Families should not cancel medical care, food assistance or other benefits without first obtaining individualized legal advice. The immigration consequences will depend on who receives the benefit, the type of program and the basis for eligibility.

Who Is Most Likely to Be Affected?

The rule will primarily affect applicants subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility, including many people applying for:

Marriage-based Green Cards;
Family-sponsored Green Cards;
Certain employment-based Green Cards;
Adjustment of Status inside the United States; and
Admission to the United States in a category subject to public charge review.
The Department of State separately handles immigrant visa applications filed through U.S. consulates abroad. The DHS rule does not directly replace the State Department’s separate public charge standards, although consular officers also conduct financial admissibility reviews under immigration law.

Who Is Exempt?

Certain humanitarian and special immigration categories remain exempt from the public charge ground under federal law.

Depending on the particular Green Card category, exemptions may apply to:

Refugees adjusting status through the refugee process;
Asylees adjusting status based on asylum;
VAWA self-petitioners;
Certain T visa holders and trafficking victims;
Certain U visa holders and qualifying crime victims;
Special Immigrant Juveniles;
Certain Cuban Adjustment Act applicants; and
Other categories specifically protected by statute.
Removing the regulatory list of exemptions does not eliminate exemptions that Congress created by law.

A person who previously held an exempt status may still be subject to public charge review if that person later applies for a Green Card through a different, nonexempt category. For example, someone with Temporary Protected Status who later applies through a family or employment petition may be evaluated under the rules applicable to that new Green Card category.

Does the Rule Affect Current Green Card Holders?

The public charge ground generally does not apply to:

Routine Green Card renewals;
Applications for U.S. citizenship;
Benefits received by U.S. citizens; or
Most lawful permanent residents simply because they use a benefit for which they are eligible.
The new rule concerns admission and Adjustment of Status. It does not create a general rule automatically deporting Green Card holders who receive government assistance.

However, a lawful permanent resident who spends an extended period outside the United States and is treated as seeking a new admission may face a different legal analysis.

What Should Green Card Applicants Do Now?

Applicants who may be subject to public charge review should begin gathering detailed financial evidence before filing.

Important documentation may include:

Federal tax returns and IRS transcripts;
Pay stubs and employment verification;
Bank and investment statements;
Property and asset records;
Health insurance evidence;
Educational degrees and professional licenses;
Evidence of job skills and employment prospects;
Form I-864 financial documentation;
Records identifying who actually received any public benefit;
The dates, amount and reason for receiving assistance; and
Evidence showing that benefit use was temporary or connected to special circumstances.
Applicants must answer Form I-485 questions truthfully. Failing to disclose requested information can create a separate and potentially more serious fraud or misrepresentation problem.

3 days ago | [YT] | 1

Marina Shepelsky

Can Someone With a Pending Asylum Application Adjust Status Through an Employment-Based Green Card?
Many people enter the United States with a valid B-1/B-2 tourist visa, F-1 student visa, even H-1 B work visa, or another temporary visa and later file for asylum. Years later, they may qualify professionally for an EB-1, EB-2 National Interest Waiver, or EB-3 immigrant petition.

A common question is whether approval of Form I-140 allows them to apply for a Green Card inside the United States.

In most cases, the answer is NO if the person’s original nonimmigrant status expired several years earlier.

A Pending Asylum Application Is Not Lawful Nonimmigrant Status

For employment-based Adjustment of Status, INA § 245(c)(7) generally prevents an EB-1, EB-2, or EB-3 applicant from adjusting status if the applicant is not in lawful nonimmigrant status when Form I-485 is filed.

Filing an asylum application does not extend a person’s B-1/B-2, F-1, or other temporary immigration status. Once the person’s authorized stay shown on Form I-94 expires, the person is generally no longer maintaining lawful nonimmigrant status.

This remains true even when:

The asylum application was filed before the I-94 expired;
The asylum application has been pending for many years;
The applicant received an asylum-based employment authorization document; or
USCIS has not yet decided the asylum case.
An asylum work permit authorizes employment, but it does not create lawful immigration status.

What Is the Person’s Immigration Status?

The most accurate description is:

Out of lawful nonimmigrant status with a pending asylum application.
A person with a bona fide pending asylum application may be considered to be in a period of authorized stay for certain unlawful-presence purposes. However, a period of authorized stay is not the same as lawful nonimmigrant status.

This distinction is important because immigration law treats the following concepts differently:

Lawful immigration status;
Authorized stay;
Unlawful presence;
Employment authorization; and
Protection from removal while an application is pending.
A person may have a pending asylum application and valid work authorization while still being out of lawful nonimmigrant status for employment-based Adjustment of Status.

The Limited 180-Day Exception Under INA § 245(k)

INA § 245(k) provides a limited exception for certain employment-based applicants.

This provision may forgive up to 180 aggregate days of:

Failure to maintain lawful status;
Unauthorized employment; or
Other violations of the terms of nonimmigrant admission.
The violations are generally measured after the applicant’s most recent lawful admission into the United States.

For example, a person whose I-94 expired fewer than 180 days before filing Form I-485 may potentially qualify under INA § 245(k), assuming all other legal requirements are satisfied.

However, someone who has remained in the United States for several years after the I-94 expired will ordinarily have exceeded the 180-day limit. A pending asylum application does not stop the person from being out of lawful status for purposes of INA § 245(k).

Lawful Status and Unlawful Presence Are Not the Same

A bona fide pending asylum application may prevent certain time from counting as unlawful presence for purposes of the three-year and ten-year reentry bars under INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(iii)(II).

However, this does not mean the person has maintained lawful nonimmigrant status.

A person can therefore be:

Out of lawful status for Adjustment of Status purposes; but
Not accumulating unlawful presence during some or all of the period while asylum is pending.
Unauthorized employment, denial of the asylum application, removal proceedings, and other facts may affect this analysis.

Does Having an Approved EB-1, EB-2 NIW or EB-3 Solve the Problem?

No. Approval of an EB-2 National Interest Waiver I-140 confirms that the applicant qualifies for the immigrant visa classification. It does not automatically establish eligibility to file Form I-485.

Even if the person has an advanced degree, exceptional ability, significant professional accomplishments, or work that benefits the United States, the applicant must still independently qualify for Adjustment of Status.

A person who has remained in the United States for several years after the expiration of B-1/B-2 or another nonimmigrant status will generally not be eligible to obtain an employment-based Green Card inside the United States through Form I-485.

Possible Exceptions

An applicant may still qualify in limited circumstances, including:

Exception 1. INA § 245(i) Grandfathering [Amnesty law, you had to have filed an I-130 or I-140 petition or Labor Certification before 04/01/2001]

Certain people may adjust status despite an overstay, unauthorized employment, or entry without inspection if they were the beneficiary of a qualifying immigrant petition or labor certification filed on or before April 30, 2001.

INA § 245(i) is not a general amnesty program. It is a narrow grandfathering provision with specific requirements.

Exception 2. A Later Lawful Admission

A person who later departs and returns through a qualifying lawful admission may potentially rely on INA § 245(k), provided the person does not accumulate more than 180 days of violations after that most recent lawful admission.

Travel should never be attempted without a full legal review. Departure may trigger reentry bars, abandonment issues, removal consequences, or other grounds of inadmissibility.

Can the Person Use Consular Processing?

An approved I-140 may sometimes be used for immigrant visa processing through a United States consulate abroad.

However, consular processing can be dangerous for someone who has lived in the United States after the expiration of their status. Before leaving, the person must be evaluated for:

Unlawful-presence bars;
Unauthorized employment;
Prior immigration violations;
Removal proceedings or removal orders;
Fraud or misrepresentation;
Asylum-related travel issues;
Grounds of inadmissibility; and
Eligibility for any required waiver.
Leaving the United States without obtaining legal advice may result in the person being unable to return.

Conclusion

A pending asylum application does not create lawful nonimmigrant status and does not automatically preserve eligibility for employment-based Adjustment of Status.

A person whose B-1/B-2 or other temporary status expired years earlier will generally be unable to obtain a Green Card inside the United States based solely on an approved EB-1, EB-2 NIW, or EB-3 I-140 petition.

Every case requires a careful review of the applicant’s entry history, I-94 records, asylum filing, employment history, travel, immigration court history, and possible statutory exceptions before filing Form I-140, Form I-485, or beginning consular processing.

This article provides general information and is not a substitute for legal advice regarding an individual immigration case.

This can also be shortened into a website FAQ or converted into a LinkedIn post.

To start your legalization journey in the U.S., call SHEPELSKY LAW GROUP today at (718)769-6352, or schedule your paid consultation directly at shepelskylaw.cliogrow.com/book

4 days ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

IMMIGRATION JUDGE FIRED AFTER GRANTING A BOND HEARING IN A HIGH-PROFILE DEPORTATION CASE

Based on Colorado Public Radio’s July 14, 2026 report. (Colorado Public Radio)

A respected Denver immigration judge, Brea Burgie, was fired by the Trump administration after nearly seven years on the immigration bench.

Her dismissal followed months of criticism from Justice Department officials over her decision to conduct bond hearings for detained immigrants.

I.J. Burgie granted bond to well-known Colorado immigration activist Jeanette Vizguerra after determining that the government had not met its legal burden to keep her detained.

Burgie said she was following a federal court decision recognizing that certain immigrants who entered without inspection were entitled to bond hearings.

The Justice Department later instructed immigration judges to stop considering those bond requests, but Burgie believed that instruction conflicted with the federal court’s ruling.

Her detained cases were reassigned, some of her decisions were reversed, and she was ultimately fired without being provided a specific reason.

Burgie is now appealing her removal and warning that political pressure on immigration judges threatens due process and the fairness of the entire immigration court system.

Follow Shepelsky Law Group for important immigration news and updates. Call Shepelsky Law Group if you are ready to legalize in the U.S. at Tel: (718)769-6352, or book your consultation directly at shepelskylaw.cliogrow.com/book

5 days ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

ICE Ordered to Stop Vehicle Pursuits After Fatal Shootings: What Immigrants Need to Know

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has reportedly issued a temporary nationwide directive ordering its officers to stop pursuing people in vehicles and attempting to arrest them through traffic stops.

According to an NBC News investigation, the policy change followed two fatal shootings involving ICE officers and drivers within one week—one in Houston, Texas, and another in Biddeford, Maine. Neither person killed was reportedly the original target of the ICE operation.

NBC News further reported that current and former immigration officials are questioning whether pressure to increase arrest numbers, combined with inadequate training and increasingly aggressive street-enforcement tactics, may have contributed to the deadly encounters.

What Does the New ICE Order Say?

According to reports, ICE leadership instructed officers to suspend vehicle stops nationwide until further notice.

The order reportedly states that ICE officers should use other enforcement methods instead of attempting to stop people while they are driving. Exceptions may apply when ICE is pursuing a person with a criminal warrant in cooperation with another law enforcement agency.

This is an important change because vehicle stops had become one of ICE’s most frequently used methods for making arrests.

Immigration officers often waited near homes and followed individuals as they left for work. Officers operating from unmarked vehicles would then attempt to stop the person’s car.

The new directive does not necessarily prohibit ICE from following vehicles, conducting surveillance, making arrests at workplaces or approaching individuals after they leave a vehicle. It also does not prevent ICE from conducting arrests inside homes when officers have lawful authority to enter.

The policy is temporary and may be changed or withdrawn by the administration.

Two Fatal Shootings Led to the Policy Change

The nationwide order followed two fatal ICE shootings involving vehicles during the week of July 7, 2026.

Fatal ICE Shooting in Houston

On July 7, 2026, an ICE officer fatally shot 52-year-old Lorenzo Salgado Araujo as he was driving members of his construction crew to a job site in Houston.

Salgado Araujo had reportedly lived in the United States for approximately 35 years. His family said he had no criminal record and was close to obtaining lawful immigration status.

DHS acknowledged that ICE officers were looking for someone else when they approached his vehicle.

According to DHS, Salgado Araujo ignored commands, struck an ICE vehicle and attempted to drive toward an officer. DHS stated that the officer fired in self-defense.

However, witnesses reportedly gave a different account. Members of Salgado Araujo’s construction crew told a member of Congress that the ICE officers were positioned beside the vehicle rather than directly in front of it.

The ICE officers involved were not wearing body cameras, and DHS has not publicly released video showing the moments before the shooting. The DHS Office of Inspector General is investigating.

Fatal ICE Shooting in Maine

On July 13, 2026, an ICE officer fatally shot 26-year-old Colombian national Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine.

ICE officers were reportedly conducting surveillance at an address associated with a person who had a final removal order. Durán Guerrero left the residence in a vehicle, but reports indicate that he was not the person ICE originally intended to arrest.

DHS initially indicated that the vehicle was used as a weapon against officers. A later DHS statement said the driver attempted to flee and that an officer fired because of concerns for public safety.

The officer was reportedly not wearing a body camera. Maine’s attorney general and federal authorities announced investigations into the shooting.

Pressure to Increase ICE Arrests

The Trump administration has significantly expanded immigration enforcement and reportedly pushed ICE to make approximately 2,000 arrests per day.

Current and former officials have raised concerns that officers may be under intense pressure to reach internal arrest goals. Vehicle stops became increasingly important to ICE because arrests inside homes usually require either the resident’s consent or a judicial warrant authorizing entry.

Reports also indicate that ICE hired thousands of new officers and temporarily shortened portions of its training program. Some veteran officers reportedly expressed concern that newer personnel did not receive adequate training on vehicle stops, de-escalation and the use of deadly force involving moving vehicles.

Aggressive enforcement goals do not eliminate constitutional protections. ICE officers must still comply with the Fourth Amendment, federal law and the agency’s use-of-force policies.

Why Vehicle Stops Can Become Dangerous

Vehicle stops can quickly escalate because people may not immediately realize that they are dealing with law enforcement.

ICE officers frequently use unmarked vehicles and may be dressed in plain clothes, tactical clothing or clothing that does not clearly identify them as federal officers. A driver may believe that unknown individuals are attempting to block, surround or enter the vehicle.

At the same time, ICE officers may view a moving vehicle as a potential deadly weapon.

These circumstances create a dangerous situation in which fear, confusion and sudden movements can lead to serious injury or death.

Law enforcement experts have warned for decades that officers should avoid shooting into moving vehicles whenever possible. Shooting the driver can cause the vehicle to continue moving without anyone controlling it, endangering officers, passengers and bystanders.

Does the Order Stop ICE From Arresting People?

No.

The suspension of vehicle stops does not stop immigration enforcement. ICE may continue to:

Conduct surveillance near homes and workplaces;
Approach individuals in public places;
Make arrests after individuals exit their vehicles;
Arrest people at immigration court or government appointments when permitted;
Arrest individuals at workplaces;
Execute criminal warrants;
Seek judicial warrants;
Ask residents for permission to enter homes; and
Coordinate operations with local or federal law enforcement agencies.
The directive changes one enforcement tactic. It does not create legal status, cancel a removal order or protect someone from arrest through other methods.

What Should You Do If ICE Attempts to Stop Your Vehicle?

Do not attempt to flee, drive away at high speed or use your vehicle to avoid officers. Even when you believe the stop is unlawful, attempting to escape can place you and your passengers in immediate physical danger.

Instead:

Slow down and stop in a safe location;
Keep your hands visible;
Avoid sudden movements;
Ask the individuals to identify themselves and their agency;
Do not physically resist;
Do not provide false information or false documents;
State clearly that you do not consent to a search;
Ask whether you are being detained or whether you are free to leave;
Ask to speak with an immigration attorney before signing documents; and
Record the encounter when it is safe and lawful to do so.
Do not sign a voluntary departure, stipulated removal, waiver or other immigration document without first speaking with an attorney. Signing certain documents may give up your right to see an immigration judge or challenge your removal.

What Should Families Do Before an ICE Encounter?

Families with immigration concerns should prepare an emergency plan before an arrest occurs.

The plan should include:

The person’s full name and A-number;
Copies of immigration applications and notices;
The telephone number of an immigration attorney;
Contact information for a trusted family member;
Instructions for children, pets and medical needs;
Information about where important documents are stored; and
A plan for obtaining medication, money and identification documents.
Family members should know that an ICE administrative warrant is not the same as a warrant signed by a federal judge. A document issued and signed only by ICE generally does not authorize officers to enter a private home without consent.

Do not open the door merely because officers say they have a warrant. Ask them to show the document through a window or slide it under the door so it can be reviewed.

The Investigations Are Still Ongoing

The full circumstances surrounding the Houston and Maine shootings have not yet been established.

DHS maintains that the officers acted in response to threats involving moving vehicles. Families, witnesses and elected officials have challenged portions of those accounts and requested independent investigations.

Because the officers were reportedly not wearing body cameras, investigators may have to rely heavily on surveillance recordings, witness testimony, physical evidence and internal ICE records.

The temporary suspension of vehicle stops suggests that ICE leadership recognizes the serious safety concerns surrounding these operations. However, it remains unclear how long the directive will remain in effect or what permanent changes ICE may adopt.

Contact Shepelsky Law Group

Immigration enforcement policies are changing rapidly. A temporary shift in ICE tactics does not mean that people with removal orders, pending immigration cases or unlawful status are safe from arrest. An experienced immigration attorney can evaluate your history, determine whether you may qualify for legal status and help your family prepare for a possible encounter with ICE.

6 days ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

DHS Employees Report Intimidation and Pressure Under the Trump Administration’s Immigration Policies

This article is based on The Guardian’s July 11, 2026 investigation into alleged intimidation, forced reassignments and staffing cuts within DHS. (The Guardian)

A new investigation raises serious concerns about what may be happening behind the scenes at the Department of Homeland Security as the Trump administration expands immigration enforcement and restructures the federal agencies responsible for asylum, humanitarian protection and immigration oversight.

According to an investigation published by The Guardian, more than three dozen current and former DHS employees described an internal climate in which experienced government workers were allegedly pressured, reassigned, investigated or pushed out after questioning immigration policies they believed might be unlawful or inconsistent with the purpose of the immigration system.

The report is especially concerning because the affected offices were responsible for protecting some of the most vulnerable people in the immigration system, including asylum seekers, refugees, trafficking victims, survivors of domestic violence and families facing separation.

DHS Employees Describe a Campaign of Fear

The Guardian reported that career DHS employees who questioned certain immigration policies allegedly faced threats of termination, arrest, loss of security clearance or involuntary reassignment.

Some employees reportedly underwent polygraph examinations that lasted as long as six hours. Several employees said they were read their Miranda rights before questioning, making them believe they were being treated as subjects of a criminal investigation.

Although the polygraph examinations were described in writing as voluntary, employees reportedly understood that refusing to participate could result in the loss of their security clearance and, ultimately, their jobs.

According to the investigation, some of the polygraph examinations were administered by individuals who identified themselves as members of the United States Air Force. The Air Force reportedly stated that any examinations of DHS personnel would have been conducted under DHS authority. DHS did not respond to The Guardian’s detailed questions before the investigation was published.

Forced Transfers and Reassignments

Employees also described being ordered to transfer to unfamiliar positions, different agencies or offices located in other states.

In some cases, workers were allegedly given only a few days to decide whether to accept the reassignment. Employees who could not relocate because of family obligations, housing, medical needs, or financial responsibilities were left with limited options.

Some resigned. Others accepted government buyouts. Some remained in their positions despite serious concerns about the direction of the agency.

These transfers may have removed experienced attorneys, policy analysts and humanitarian specialists from the areas where their knowledge was most needed.

Offices Protecting Vulnerable Immigrants Were Dismantled

The reported restructuring affected divisions responsible for:

Refugee and asylum policy;
Temporary Protected Status;
Humanitarian parole and related programs;
Protections for victims of human trafficking;
Immigration benefits for survivors of domestic violence;
Family reunification;
Complaints involving ICE and Customs and Border Protection; and
Investigations involving deaths in immigration detention, excessive force and violations of detainees’ rights.
A former USCIS attorney told The Guardian that career employees were allegedly pressured to approve or support policies they considered immoral, unlawful or historically inconsistent with the mission of the immigration system.

Employees who objected were reportedly removed from projects, reassigned or pushed out of government service.

DHS Civil Rights Oversight Has Been Severely Reduced

The investigation also describes major reductions within the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

This office has historically investigated complaints involving immigration detention, discrimination, excessive force, access to medical care, and other possible civil rights violations involving DHS agencies.

More than 100 employees were reportedly dismissed from the office in March 2025, leaving approximately 600 investigations frozen. A subsequent court review reportedly found that fewer than 40 employees remained in the office.

Of nearly 6,000 complaints received, the office reportedly directly investigated only 183—approximately 3%. Previously, the office reviewed a substantially larger percentage of the complaints it received.

The Immigration Detention Ombudsman’s Office, another important oversight body, was also reportedly reduced from 118 employees in 2025 to only five employees.

These cuts matter because immigrants in detention and their families often depend on these oversight offices when they cannot obtain answers from ICE, detention facilities or other DHS agencies.

What This Means for Immigrants

The reported internal pressure at DHS does not mean that every USCIS, ICE or CBP officer is acting unlawfully. Many career employees continue to perform their duties professionally and in accordance with the law.

However, the allegations raise serious concerns about whether experienced immigration professionals are being removed and whether legal and humanitarian safeguards are being weakened.

Immigrants may experience:

Longer processing delays;
Less consistent decision-making;
More aggressive requests for evidence;
Increased scrutiny of asylum and humanitarian applications;
Greater difficulty correcting government errors;
Fewer meaningful investigations of complaints;
Reduced assistance for detained immigrants and their families; and
More decisions based on enforcement priorities rather than humanitarian considerations.
The loss of experienced personnel may be particularly damaging in complicated cases involving asylum, trafficking, domestic violence, medical emergencies and family separation.

Immigration Officers Must Still Follow the Law

No presidential administration has unlimited power over the immigration system.

USCIS, ICE, CBP and other DHS agencies must continue to follow federal statutes, regulations, constitutional protections, and binding court orders. Immigration officers cannot legally deny a case simply because an applicant is unpopular or because an employee feels pressured to reach a particular result.

Applicants may still challenge unlawful denials, unreasonable delays, detention conditions, and violations of due process through administrative appeals, federal court litigation, and other legal procedures.

However, protecting these rights often requires careful documentation and immediate legal action.

What Immigrants Should Do Now

Anyone applying for an immigration benefit should keep complete copies of every application, supporting document, notice, receipt, and communication with the government.

Applicants should immediately review any request for evidence, notice of intent to deny, interview notice, removal hearing notice, or other government correspondence. Missing a deadline can seriously damage a case, even when the government made an error.

Immigrants should also avoid relying on verbal statements from officers or unofficial online advice. Important communications should be documented whenever possible.

Those in immigration detention should provide family members or attorneys with their A-number, detention location, immigration documents, and emergency contact information.

Most importantly, applicants should obtain individualized legal advice before filing applications, responding to government requests or making decisions that could affect their immigration status.

Shepelsky Law Group Is Ready to Protect Your Immigration Case

The immigration system is becoming more aggressive, less predictable, and increasingly difficult to navigate without experienced legal representation. Government restructuring does not eliminate your legal rights, but it may make those rights harder to enforce.

At Shepelsky Law Group, we represent immigrants in asylum cases, removal proceedings, family-based immigration matters, humanitarian applications, waivers, appeals, and other complex immigration cases. We carefully document our clients’ claims, respond to government errors and fight to ensure that immigration agencies follow the law.

Do not wait until your case has been denied or you have been placed into removal proceedings. Contact Shepelsky Law Group today at (718) 769-6352 or visit www.ShepelskyLaw.com to schedule a consultation.

1 week ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

Applying for a U.S. visa, green card, asylum, or citizenship? Your social media can matter more than you think

Immigration officers may review online activity, and certain posts can raise red flags about your honesty, intent, background, or eligibility. Before you file, take time to review your public profiles and avoid posts that could hurt your case. Posts that seem harmless, funny, or casual can sometimes create questions about honesty, intent, safety, or eligibility. Before posting online, applicants should understand that their photos, captions, comments, likes, and shared content may be viewed in the context of their immigration case.

Here are 11 examples of what to avoid posting if applying for a U.S. visa, green card, asylum, citizenship, or other immigration benefit:

Posts that contradict your immigration application
Example: You apply for asylum saying you fear returning home, but you post vacation photos from that country saying you had the best time ever.
Real-life issue: Officers often compare public information with the story in the application.
Jokes about immigration fraud
Example: Finally got married for papers lol or Who needs love when you need a green card.
Even if meant as a joke, it can look terrible in a marriage-based green card case.
Posts suggesting a fake marriage or staged relationship
Example: Posting that you are single while applying for a spouse-based green card, or posting romantic photos with someone else while claiming a bona fide marriage.
Real-life example: Marriage fraud is an active enforcement priority, and USCIS/ICE have publicly emphasized investigations into fraudulent marriages.
Admitting unauthorized work
Example: Posting videos saying I’m working cash jobs while waiting for papers or I don’t have work authorization but I’m still working.
This can create problems in visa, adjustment, asylum, or discretionary applications.
Posts about drugs, weapons, violence, or criminal activity
Example: Photos with illegal drugs, bragging about fights, guns, threats, scams, fake IDs, or driving drunk.
Even if exaggerated, it can raise admissibility, criminal, or public safety concerns.
Threats or extremist content
Example: Sharing posts that praise violence, terrorist groups, hate groups, or attacks on civilians.
USCIS has announced that certain social media activity may be considered in immigration benefit screening.
Anti-American or hateful statements framed as violence or hostility
Example: Not just political criticism, but posts like America should be destroyed or supporting harm against Americans.
Real-life issue: USCIS announced guidance considering anti-Americanism in discretionary immigration requests.
Posts showing false intent for a temporary visa
Example: Applying for a tourist visa while posting I’m moving to New York permanently next month or Going to the U.S. to work, but telling the embassy it’s vacation.
This can hurt B-1/B-2, F-1, J-1, and other nonimmigrant visa cases.
Posts showing fake documents or bad immigration advice
Example: Posting Need someone to make me a fake bank statement or Anyone know how to lie at the embassy?
This can create misrepresentation and fraud concerns.
Oversharing case details that can be used against you
Example: Posting your asylum story, court date, private immigration documents, or screenshots of USCIS notices.
This can expose inconsistencies, invite scams, or allow others to report your case. USCIS has a public tip form for suspected immigration fraud.
Inappropriate photos involving alcohol, drugs, nudity, or other questionable content
Example: Posting photos or videos showing excessive drinking, drug use, sexually explicit images, nudity, or other inappropriate behavior. Even if the post is meant to be funny or casual, immigration officers may view it negatively when assessing your character, credibility, judgment, or eligibility for an immigration benefit.
Best rule: before posting, ask:
Could this make me look dishonest, unsafe, fraudulent, or inconsistent with my immigration forms? If yes, do not post it.

When applying for a U.S. visa, green card, asylum, citizenship, or another immigration benefit, your online presence matters. Social media posts that seem harmless today can later raise questions about your honesty, intent, background, or eligibility. Before filing any immigration application, it is important to be mindful of what you post, review your public profiles, and speak with an experienced immigration attorney if you have concerns.

At Shepelsky Law Group, our immigration lawyers help clients prepare strong, honest, and well-documented immigration cases. Call us today at Tel: (718) 769-6352 or visit www.ShepelskyLaw.com to schedule a consultation.

1 week ago | [YT] | 1

Marina Shepelsky

Former Wisconsin Judge Faces Sentencing After Immigration Arrest Obstruction Case

A former Wisconsin judge is facing sentencing after being convicted in a high-profile case involving federal immigration enforcement inside a courthouse. The case has drawn national attention because it highlights the growing tension between local court systems, federal immigration agents, and immigrants who are required to appear in court for criminal or civil matters.

Hannah Dugan, a former Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, was found guilty of obstructing a federal proceeding after prosecutors alleged that she interfered with a planned immigration arrest outside her courtroom. The case involved Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican immigrant who had appeared in court on misdemeanor criminal charges. Federal immigration agents were allegedly waiting in a courthouse hallway to arrest him after his court appearance.

According to prosecutors, Judge Dugan directed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney toward a non-public jury door instead of allowing federal agents to take him into custody immediately outside the courtroom. Flores-Ruiz was later arrested outside the courthouse after a brief foot chase. Dugan was convicted of obstruction but was cleared of a separate charge accusing her of concealing a person from arrest.

This case became politically and legally significant because it happened during a period of intensified immigration enforcement. Courthouse arrests have become a controversial issue across the United States. Immigrant advocates argue that arrests at courthouses can scare immigrants away from appearing for hearings, reporting crimes, testifying as witnesses, seeking protective orders, or participating in the legal system. Federal officials, on the other hand, argue that immigration agents have authority to make arrests when individuals are removable from the United States.

For immigrants, this case is an important reminder that any contact with the criminal justice system can have serious immigration consequences. Even a misdemeanor court date can place someone at risk if they have an outstanding removal order, prior deportation, unlawful reentry, pending immigration case, expired status, or other immigration issues. Many immigrants do not realize that attending court, going to probation, appearing at an interview, or even walking into a government building may trigger immigration enforcement.

This is why it is extremely important to speak with an experienced immigration lawyer before going to court if you are not a U.S. citizen. A criminal case and an immigration case are often connected, even when they are handled in different courts. What may seem like a minor criminal matter can affect a person’s green card, asylum case, work permit, bond eligibility, naturalization application, or ability to remain in the United States.

An immigration attorney can help evaluate whether there is an ICE risk, whether there are prior removal issues, whether a criminal charge may create deportability, and what steps may be available to protect the person before appearing in court. Immigrants should also understand that criminal defense attorneys and immigration attorneys often need to work together because the outcome of a criminal case can directly impact immigration status.

The Wisconsin judge’s case also shows how aggressively federal authorities may respond when they believe someone interfered with immigration enforcement. The sentencing range discussed in the case reportedly included possible prison time, showing that obstruction allegations are treated very seriously by federal prosecutors.

For immigrant families, the takeaway is simple: do not ignore court notices, immigration notices, ICE concerns, or criminal charges. Get legal advice early. The earlier an attorney reviews the situation, the more options may be available.

Shepelsky Law Group helps immigrants and families understand their rights, evaluate immigration risks, and prepare for complex immigration matters involving court appearances, ICE concerns, criminal history, asylum, deportation defense, family petitions, and green card cases.

Call Shepelsky Law Group today at (718) 769-6352 or visit www.ShepelskyLaw.com to schedule a consultation.

1 week ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

Marriage Green Cards Are Facing More Scrutiny: Why Couples Should Use an Immigration Lawyer Now More Than Ever

Marriage to a U.S. citizen has long been one of the most common paths to a green card. But it is important for couples to understand that marriage alone does not automatically give someone lawful immigration status, a green card, or citizenship. Under the current administration, marriage-based immigration cases are reportedly facing more scrutiny, more detailed questioning, longer delays, and closer review by immigration officers.

For many families, this is creating fear and confusion. A spouse of a U.S. citizen may still have to prove that the marriage is real, that the foreign-born spouse is legally eligible for a green card, that there are no immigration violations or inadmissibility issues, and that all required paperwork and evidence have been submitted correctly. Even couples in genuine marriages can face serious problems if the case is not prepared properly.

Marriage-Based Immigration Is Not Automatic

Many people believe that once they marry a U.S. citizen, the immigration case will be simple. Unfortunately, that is not always true. USCIS and consular officers can still question the marriage, review the couple’s history, examine prior immigration filings, look at criminal records, analyze past visa entries, and request additional proof.

A marriage-based case can become complicated if the foreign-born spouse:

Had unlawful presence in the United States
Entered the U.S. without inspection
Overstayed a visa
Worked without authorization
Previously applied for asylum or another immigration benefit
Was ordered removed or deported
Has a criminal history
Used a false name or false documents
Had a prior marriage-based filing
Previously received a visa denial
Has inconsistencies in immigration records
Is from a country subject to additional security screening or visa delays
Even small mistakes can lead to delays, requests for evidence, interview problems, denials, or removal risks.

Adjustment of Status vs. Consular Processing

There are two common ways to apply for a marriage-based green card: adjustment of status inside the United States or consular processing through a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad.

Adjustment of status may be available for certain spouses who are already in the United States and meet legal requirements. However, not everyone qualifies. A person’s manner of entry, immigration history, prior violations, and any removal orders must be carefully reviewed before filing.

Consular processing means the immigrant spouse completes the green card process abroad after the I-130 petition is approved. This can be risky if the person has unlawful presence, prior immigration violations, misrepresentation issues, or needs a waiver. In some cases, leaving the United States for a consular interview can trigger a three-year or ten-year bar, and the spouse may be stuck outside the country unless a waiver is approved.

This is why it is extremely important to speak with an immigration attorney before filing anything or before leaving the United States for a consular interview.

Why Use an Immigration Lawyer Now More Than Ever?

With marriage-based cases facing closer review, couples should not treat the process as a simple paperwork filing. An experienced immigration attorney can help identify risks before they become major problems.

A lawyer can help by:

Reviewing whether the foreign-born spouse qualifies for adjustment of status or must use consular processing
Checking for unlawful presence, prior deportation orders, visa fraud, criminal issues, or other inadmissibility problems
Determining whether a waiver is needed before moving forward
Preparing a strong I-130 petition with evidence of a real marriage
Organizing joint documents, photos, financial records, leases, insurance, taxes, travel history, and affidavits
Preparing the couple for detailed USCIS or consular interview questions
Responding to Requests for Evidence or Notices of Intent to Deny
Avoiding mistakes that can cause long delays or denials
Helping couples understand risks before the immigrant spouse travels outside the U.S.
Protecting families from filing a case that may accidentally place the immigrant spouse at risk of removal
A real marriage is not always enough. The government still expects the couple to prove eligibility with documents, testimony, and a consistent legal record.

Couples Should Prepare Early

If you are planning to file a marriage-based green card case, now is the time to prepare carefully. Couples should gather evidence of their relationship, review their immigration history, address any prior issues, and make sure every answer on every form is accurate.

It is also important to understand that USCIS and consular officers may ask detailed questions about the relationship, living arrangements, finances, prior marriages, immigration history, work history, travel, and future plans. Couples should be ready to explain their case clearly and honestly.

Do Not File Blindly

Filing without legal guidance can be dangerous, especially if the immigrant spouse has any prior immigration violation, unlawful presence, visa denial, criminal arrest, deportation order, or complicated travel history. A poorly prepared case can lead to delays, denials, separation from family, or even removal proceedings.

Marriage-based immigration is still possible, and many cases are still being approved. But the process must be handled carefully, especially in today’s stricter immigration environment.

If you are married to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident and want to apply for a green card through USCIS or consular processing, Shepelsky Law Group can help you understand your options, prepare a strong case, and avoid costly mistakes. Call us today at Tel: (718) 769-6352 or visit www.ShepelskyLaw.com.

1 week ago | [YT] | 2

Marina Shepelsky

Lawsuit Claims U.S. Shared Confidential Asylum Information With Iran: What Iranian Immigrants Should Know

A new federal lawsuit is raising serious concerns for Iranian asylum seekers and other immigrants who fear persecution if returned to Iran.

According to recent reporting and a lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., the U.S. government is accused of sharing confidential immigration and asylum-related information about Iranian nationals with representatives of the Iranian government. The lawsuit claims that this information may have included sensitive details about asylum claims, religious conversion, political activity, LGBTQ identity, family information, and reasons why individuals feared returning to Iran. The Department of Homeland Security has denied the allegations and stated that ICE did not share asylum application records with the Iranian government.

The lawsuit was filed by the Iranian American Legal Defense Fund, represented in part by attorneys from Public Citizen Litigation Group. The lawsuit claims that U.S. government agencies shared sensitive immigration and asylum-related information about Iranian nationals with representatives of the Iranian government. The allegations are especially serious because asylum applications often contain private details about political opinions, religious conversion, protest activity, LGBTQ identity, family members, and the reasons a person fears returning to their home country.

According to the lawsuit, the organization learned about the alleged information-sharing through its work assisting detained Iranian asylum seekers, reports from detainees who said Iranian officials appeared to know details about their asylum cases, confidential source information, and public records or public reporting. While the U.S. government has denied sharing asylum application records, the lawsuit raises major concerns about the safety of Iranian immigrants and the importance of protecting confidential asylum information from disclosure to the very governments applicants may be fleeing.

This is a very serious issue because asylum cases often contain deeply personal and dangerous information. Many asylum seekers flee their home countries because they fear the government itself. If that same government learns that a person applied for asylum in the United States, or learns the details of that claim, it may place the applicant and their family members at risk.

Why Is Asylum Information Supposed to Be Confidential?

U.S. immigration regulations protect asylum-related information. Under 8 C.F.R. § 208.6, information contained in or relating to an application for asylum, withholding of removal, Convention Against Torture protection, credible fear, or reasonable fear generally cannot be disclosed without the applicant’s written consent, except in limited circumstances allowed by law.

These confidentiality protections exist for a reason. A person who applies for asylum may be accusing their home government of persecution, torture, threats, imprisonment, or discrimination. Revealing that information to the government they fled could create new danger or make an existing danger worse.

The lawsuit also points to regulations involving consular notification, stating that U.S. officials may coordinate deportation logistics with a foreign government, but should not reveal that a detained immigrant applied for asylum or withholding of removal.

What Does the Lawsuit Allege?

The lawsuit claims that beginning in March 2025, U.S. officials allegedly began coordinating with representatives of Iran through the Iranian Interests Section, which operates through the Embassy of Pakistan because the United States and Iran do not have formal diplomatic relations. The complaint alleges that immigration files and information about detained Iranian nationals were shared during meetings and through mailed or hand-delivered records.

The complaint further alleges that Iranian officials met with detained Iranian asylum seekers in ICE custody and appeared to already know details about their immigration cases and asylum claims. According to the lawsuit, this made detained asylum seekers fear that they had been identified to the very government they were fleeing.

Again, these are allegations in a pending lawsuit. DHS has denied sharing asylum application records with Iran.

Why This Matters for Iranian Asylum Seekers

For Iranian asylum seekers, confidentiality can be a matter of life or death. Many Iranian cases involve claims based on political opinion, participation in protests, conversion to Christianity, membership in religious minority groups, women’s rights activism, LGBTQ identity, or opposition to the Iranian regime.

If confidential information is disclosed to Iranian authorities, an asylum seeker may face interrogation, detention, torture, or other persecution if deported. Their relatives in Iran may also be placed at risk.

This is especially concerning because asylum applicants are expected to be honest and detailed when explaining their fear. They often disclose information that they would never safely reveal to officials from their home country.

What Should Iranian Immigrants Do Now?

If you are an Iranian national with a pending asylum case, removal order, ICE check-in, immigration court hearing, or detention issue, it is important to speak with an experienced immigration attorney immediately.

You should especially seek legal help if:

You are afraid your asylum information may have been shared with Iranian officials.
You were asked to meet with Iranian officials while in ICE custody.
You are under a final order of removal.
You have an upcoming ICE check-in.
You are worried about being deported to Iran or a third country.
You previously lost your asylum case but now believe there is new danger based on disclosure of your information.
Depending on the facts, an attorney may be able to evaluate options such as a motion to reopen, stay of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, Convention Against Torture protection, or other emergency legal action.
Do Not Ignore Immigration Notices or ICE Appointments

If you receive a notice from immigration court, ICE, USCIS, or DHS, do not ignore it. Missing an appointment can make your case much worse. At the same time, do not attend an ICE appointment or respond to government questions about a sensitive asylum matter without first consulting with an immigration lawyer.

Every case is different. The right strategy depends on your immigration history, current status, prior applications, court decisions, and whether you have a final order of removal.

If you or your loved one is from Iran and fears return because of political opinion, religion, conversion, LGBTQ identity, protest activity, family ties, or any other protected ground, Shepelsky Law Group can help evaluate your immigration options.

Call us today at Tel: (718) 769-6352 or visit www.ShepelskyLaw.com.

1 week ago | [YT] | 2