David K.S. Kim has successfully handled some of the most complex and difficult cases involving immigration law, including the following:
Federal Court litigation
Attorney Kim won the following three precedent decisions involving issues of first impression that may have significant impact nationwide on immigration law:
- Sharkey v. Quarantillo, 541 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2008) — Federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over suits challenging the legality of government rescission of lawful permanent resident status without following the mandatory statutory and regulatory requirements.
- Shi Jie Ge v. Holder, 588 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2009) — To win an exception to the one-year filing deadline for asylum, Attorney Kim argued that the applicant for asylum should not be required to establish that the authorities had already learned of his political activities in order to establish a well-founded fear. What had to be shown was that those activities would likely become known to the authorities if the asylum-seeker were returned to the persecuting country.
- Galluzzo v. Holder, 633 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2011) — Absent clear evidence of waiver of right to contest removal, Visa Waiver Program (VWP) entrants cannot be subject to removal without a hearing, because removal of VWP entrants under such circumstances violates due process.
The following case was a decision without any oral argument, solely based on briefing by Mr. Kim:
- Accardo v. Atty. General, 634 F.3d 1333, (11th Cir. 2011) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit vacated the removal order and reversed the BIA's finding that extension of extortionate credit in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 892(a) is categorically a crime of violence, Attorney Kim's argument that it is not a crime of violence because "§ 892(a) encompasses some criminal behavior that falls within the definition of aggravated felony, and some that does not."
Removal and Bond Proceedings before Immigration Court
Mr. Kim has successfully represented hundreds of clients in removal proceedings and bond proceedings before the Immigration Courts throughout the country, including:
- Termination of removal proceedings based on extensive litigation of issues of whether the criminal convictions in question are removable crimes.
- Grant of former INA § 212(c) waiver for clients with extensive criminal history
- Grant of INA § 212(i) fraud waiver for clients, including a client convicted of federal immigration fraud for bribing an INS officer.
- Grant of INA § 212(h) waiver for clients convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude.
- Grant of non-lawful permanent resident cancellation of removal INA § 240A(b) for clients with extensive criminal history.
- Grant of lawful permanent resident cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(a) for clients with extensive criminal history.
- Grant of adjustment of status to permanent residence for many clients whose prior applications were denied by the USCIS.
- Grant of numerous applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture for clients from all over the world.
- Grant of numerous motions to reopen removal proceedings before the Immigration Courts throughout the country, including:
- Motion to Reopen In Absentia Removal Orders
- Motion to Reopen based on Ineffective Assistance of Former Counsel
- Motion to Reopen Based on Changed Circumstances
- Sua Sponte Motion to Reopen
- Joint Motion to Reopen
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
Attorney Kim has successfully challenged the removal orders issued by Immigration Judges before the Board of Immigration Appeals, including appeals vacating:
- Findings that certain crimes — including vehicular manslaughter and DUI causing serious injury or death — are removable crimes with no relief from removal
- Decisions finding registered nurse adjustment of status applications ineligible for relief from removal
- Decisions denying cancellation of removal applications within discretion, including for lack of remorse for past criminal conduct as contrary to the record and testimony
- Decisions denying motions to reopen
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
Attorney Kim has successfully represented hundreds of clients seeking various immigration benefits before the USCIS, including:
- Approval of numerous nonimmigrant visa petitions, including E-1, E-2, F-1, H-1B, J-1, K-1, L-1A, L-1B, O-1, P-1, R-1.
- Approval of numerous Adjustment of Status applications for lawful permanent residence, including some for applicants with criminal histories and other grounds of inadmissibility
- Approval of various waivers of inadmissibility of grounds, that would otherwise make the applicants ineligible for lawful permanent residence
- Approval of numerous motions to reopen and reconsider based on ineffective assistance of counsel and USCIS errors
- Approval of numerous naturalization applications, including those for clients with criminal histories
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Attorney Kim has successfully represented numerous clients before ICE for the following:
- Approval of numerous bond requests
- Successful negotiations to close removal cases
- Successful grants of numerous Deferred Action requests
- Successful certification of U Visas
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
Attorney Kim has successfully represented numerous clients before the CBP for the following:
- Passing numerous Deferred Inspections, including those of clients with criminal history
- Admission of clients with invalid entry documents
U.S. Department of State (DOS)
Attorney Kim has successfully represented numerous clients before U.S. Consulates all over the world, including those in South Korea, Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Germany, India, Poland, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Egypt, Israel, South Africa and Haiti for the following:
- Approval of non-immigrant visas, including B-1/B-2,E-2, F-1, H-1B, J-1, K-1, L-1A, R-1, O-1, P-1, R-1.
- Approval of immigrant visas
- Approval of waivers of inadmissibility, including inadmissibility for criminal record and prior immigration law violations (3-year bar, 10-year bar)
- Reversal of decisions denying visas through Request for Legal Opinion with the U.S. State Department