Due to the current situation related to Coronavirus, and the State of Emergency orders from the governor of California, our office will continue to work behind closed doors. We will not see any clients in person.
If you have any questions please address them to us via email to [email protected]
To the extent possible we will try to accommodate telephonic appointments or consultations but we ask that you request them via e-mail. Our telephone number, (619) 291-1112, will continue to operate to the extent that the situation permits, but any appointments must be scheduled through e-mail. 
Thank you for your understanding.

Debido a la situación actual relacionada con el Coronavirus, al grado que nos sea posible, nuestro personal seguirá trabajando a puerta cerrada, no se atenderá a nadie en persona. 
En caso de tener alguna duda o pregunta favor de hacerla por correo electrónico a [email protected]ionlawclinic.com  
Trataremos de llevar a cabo consultas migratorias telefónicamente. Pedimos solicite cita telefónica mediante correo electrónico. Nuestro teléfono, (619) 291-1112, seguirá operando al grado que nos lo permita la situación actual, pero cualquier cita se agendará por correo electrónico.
Gracias por su comprensión

Resolving Immigration Problems
In An Honest & Responsible Manner

Man wins case because of incomplete Notice of Hearing

The authorities in California were going to remove a man from the country, but he countered, saying he had lived in the state long enough to cancel the removal. The rule he cited said that he had to reside in California for seven years in a row. He had done that and more, so he asked to have it canceled.

However, in 2008, the man was sent a Notice to Appear. When someone gets this notice, it then puts the stop-time rule into play, meaning that time spent after the notice does not count. Since he had gotten it in 2008 and his case began in 2018, they claimed he should lose those 10 years. That would make him ineligible to cancel the removal.

The Supreme Court

Initially, it looked like this tactic worked. The court ruled that he couldn’t count those years due to the order. Even so, he continued to fight it, taking it to the Supreme Court.

That’s where things turned in his favor. Technically, the Notice to Appear has to provide the person who gets it with the place and time for the removal proceedings. If it does not do so, then the stop-time rule does not trigger, and that person can count the time after the notice arrives.

The man’s notice did not have that information. As such, the Supreme Court said that the stop-time rule never applied to him, giving him those 10 years back.

His opponents pointed out that he had also gotten a Notice of Hearing, which they claimed gave him the proper information. Shouldn’t that trigger the rule at that point, since it meant he had both the Notice to Appear and the time-and-place information?

The court did not agree. They claimed that the rules applied to the initial Notice to Appear and that sending him more paperwork did not fix the mistakes made in that original notice. It was still not a valid notice, which he deserved if the stop-time rule was to apply to his case.

Your rights

This case helps to explain some of the rules surrounding immigration for those with any status, and it’s important to consider exactly what it may mean for more cases in the future. The small details of a case matter.

At the same time, it shows that you should never assume that your case is over just because you didn’t win in the lower court. You may still have legal options, and it’s important to know what they are.


We are open Monday to Friday, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and we accept Visa, MasterCard, Discover and American Express.

For our clients’ convenience we offer English and Spanish speaking services.

Trump administration now wants to replace properly trained and experienced asylum officers with Border Patrol officers with 5 weeks training to conduct credible fear interviews. Quality and justice once again sacrificed for speed by Trump.

Jóvenes DACA en peligro.
Los jóvenes que se han visto beneficiados con el programa DACA se podrán ver perjudicados si no renuevan su DACA antes del fallo de la corte suprema de la nación que será en junio de 2020.
Lo recomendable es que se renueve dicho permiso aún si el permiso vence despues de la fecha del fallo de la corte que sera en junio de 2020.