Gibbs Houston Pauw is nationally recognized as a leader in immigration litigation. Administrative agencies such as United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”), the Department of Labor, Customs and Border Protection, the State Department, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (Immigration Court and the Board of Immigration Appeals), are duty bound to follow the United States Constitution, laws passed by Congress, and their own regulations. When they do not, federal court litigation may be an option. Attorneys at Gibbs Houston Pauw can analyze your particular case to determine if federal court litigation may help to resolve your issue.
We frequently consult with clients who have contacted several other attorneys but have been unable to resolve their immigration issues. If this has happened to you, we recommend a consultation with one of our attorneys to determine if litigation may be an option in your case. We specialize in handling complex matters and will work hard to reach a fair, just, and equitable result in your case.
While our offices are located in Seattle, Washington, Gibbs Houston Pauw handles cases all over the United States. For example, in 2012, Gibbs Houston Pauw litigated cases in Chicago, Sacramento, New York and New Orleans, in addition to Seattle.
Here are a few examples of cases that Gibbs Houston Pauw has successfully handled:
- Afato v. Clinton, Civ. No. S-10-0060-MCE (E.D.Cal. 2012): Litigation against the State Department challenging the denial of a waiver of the foreign residence requirement under INA § 212(e). The case was resolved favorably, with the State Department agreeing to grant the requested waiver. Dr. Afato is now a lawful permanent resident.
- Abdur-Rahman v. Napolitano, Case No. 09-1269-RSM (W.D. Wash. 2012): Litigation against USCIS and Customs and Border Protection challenging the de facto deportation of a family with pending applications for permanent residence status. The federal judge in the case ordered the United States government to permit the family to return to the United States to pursue their green card applications. The judge additionally set aside agency denials of visa petitions as contrary to the evidence, and an abuse of discretion.
- Siddiqui v. Holder, Case No. 10-1282 (7th Cir. 2010): Successful challenge to a legalization denial (from the 1987 legalization program) that had been pending for 22 years. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals set aside the agency’s denial and vacated the deportation order, finding that the agency had ignored relevant evidence, and disregarded its own regulations.