Office Location is Irving, Texas and Albuquerque, New Mexico
Stay updated on the latest immigration news and policy changes. See what's changed.
Office Location is Irving, Texas and Albuquerque, New Mexico
The U.S. immigration system involves stringent requirements, and the outcome of a case can significantly impact your future. While most applications proceed smoothly with proper preparation, procedural errors, missed deadlines, or insufficient evidence can lead to severe complications, including Requests for Evidence, Notices of Intent to Deny, or outright denials.
If you are experiencing communication issues with your current attorney, or if your case has resulted in an unfavorable decision, you have the right to seek a second opinion. At John W. Lawit, LLC, we utilize over 40 years of immigration law experience to evaluate stalled or mishandled cases and implement corrective legal strategies. Operating from Irving, Texas, we represent clients nationwide in complex immigration matters.
Below are some frequently asked questions about changing immigration attorneys, along with examples of how our firm addresses common case complications.
Yes. You retain the right to change your legal representation at any point in the process if you are dissatisfied with the handling of your case. Transitioning to a new attorney requires a standard procedural update. When you retain our firm, we file a Form G-28 (Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative) with the appropriate agency. This document officially registers us as your counsel of record and directs all future correspondence to our office.
The Situation: Removal proceedings require comprehensive preparation, particularly when seeking relief such as Cancellation of Removal. Cases are frequently jeopardized when prior counsel fails to prepare adequately for a bond hearing, omits essential evidence, or fails to establish the required level of hardship to qualifying U.S. citizen relatives. Immediate intervention is necessary when an individual is detained or facing an imminent order of removal due to inadequate representation.
Case Example: A client consulted us after an immigration judge issued a removal order. The prior attorney had applied for Cancellation of Removal but submitted insufficient medical and educational documentation to establish that the client’s U.S. citizen child would suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” Our firm took over the case and filed a Motion to Reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We obtained comprehensive medical records, secured detailed statements from the child’s specialists, and submitted a fully documented brief. The motion was granted, the case was reopened, and the client was ultimately awarded Cancellation of Removal and lawful permanent resident status.
The Situation: Family-based immigration, particularly cases requiring an I-601 or I-601A provisional waiver for unlawful presence, requires substantial documentation. Applications are often denied or delayed when prior counsel submits a superficial application that fails to substantiate the “extreme hardship” a qualifying relative would experience upon separation, or when insufficient evidence of a bona fide marriage is provided.
Case Example: A married couple contacted our firm after receiving a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) for their I-130 spousal petition. Their previous attorney had submitted only a marriage certificate and a residential lease, which USCIS deemed insufficient evidence of a shared life. Operating within a strict 30-day response window, our team compiled over 200 pages of supplementary evidence. This included joint financial statements, sworn affidavits, chronological photographic evidence, and joint insurance policies. We submitted a detailed legal brief addressing the adjudicator’s concerns, successfully overcoming the NOID and securing an approval for the petition.
The Situation: Employment-based categories, such as the EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW), EB-5 investor visas, and specialized non-immigrant work visas, are subject to rigorous scrutiny. If the initial petition fails to adequately document the applicant’s qualifications, the national importance of the proposed endeavor, or the financial viability of the sponsoring entity, USCIS will issue a complex Request for Evidence (RFE). An incomplete or poorly structured response to an RFE typically results in a denial.
Case Example: A technology entrepreneur applying for an EB-2 NIW received an extensive RFE because their initial business plan, prepared by previous counsel, did not align with current adjudicatory standards. The government remained unconvinced of the venture’s national importance. Our firm restructured the response strategy. We collaborated with the client to obtain targeted letters of recommendation from industry experts, revised the legal arguments to reflect relevant precedent decisions, and incorporated objective market data to demonstrate the business’s economic impact. Following our submission, the visa petition was approved.
The Situation: Humanitarian relief, including Asylum, Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) petitions, and U-Visas, relies heavily on corroborating evidence. Claims are frequently denied when applications are submitted without essential supporting documents, such as country condition reports, translated threat letters, or psychological evaluations. If a denial stems from procedural deficiencies or a failure to present available corroborating evidence, appellate options may be available.
Case Example: An individual fleeing severe political persecution had their asylum claim denied by an immigration judge. The denial cited a lack of corroborating evidence, as the previous attorney failed to submit relevant human rights reports or translations of threatening correspondence. Our firm appealed the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing that the client received ineffective assistance of counsel. The BIA remanded the case to the immigration court. Upon rehearing, we presented an extensive evidentiary packet and expert witness testimony, resulting in a grant of asylum.
The Situation: A denial from USCIS or an immigration judge does not necessarily conclude a case, but it does trigger strict, unforgiving deadlines—often 30 days or fewer. Depending on the jurisdiction and the type of application, the appropriate response may involve filing an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), or submitting a Motion to Reopen or Reconsider. These filings require specialized legal research and precise appellate brief writing to identify and challenge legal or factual errors made by the adjudicating officer.
Case Example: A client consulted us after their marriage-based Green Card was denied due to an immigration officer misunderstanding a foreign legal document regarding a prior divorce. Their previous attorney advised them to restart the years-long application process from the beginning. Instead, our team immediately filed an appeal. We researched the family law of the client’s home country, obtained a clear statement from an expert in that jurisdiction to explain the document properly, and drafted a brief demonstrating exactly how the adjudicator erred in their legal interpretation. The appeals office agreed with our analysis, overturned the denial, and the client received their Green Card without the need to reapply.
Have additional questions? Call the office at 214-609-2242 to schedule a consultation.
