The Nation’s Leading Immigration Law Firm in Federal Court Litigation and Removal Defense
Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt P.A. , has an unparalleled reputation as the leading law firm in this highly specialized area of immigration law. Our attorneys have successfully represented hundreds of clients before the United States Supreme Court, the lower federal courts, and the administrative appeals courts including the BIA and the AAO. Because of KKWTP’s expertise and track record in winning most difficult cases, many immigration attorneys throughout the country refer their cases to KKWTP.
Federal Court Litigation
Ira J. Kurzban, Esq., the law firm’s partner and the Chair of the Immigration Department, is a certified specialist in immigration law and a past National President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Mr. Kurzban has litigated over 50 reported immigration cases before federal district courts, federal courts of appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. In fact, Mr. Kurzban has argued more immigration related cases before the United States Supreme Court than any other private practitioner in the United States. Among the many highlights of his career are: a $500 million judgment won against Jean-Claude Duvalier, former dictator of Haiti; class action lawsuits winning residency for over 200,000 farm workers, McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 US 479 (1991) (establishing right to bring pattern and practice lawsuit by aliens against INS), release from detention of over 2,000 Haitian asylum seekers, Jean v. Nelson, 472 US 846 (1985) (establishing the right of aliens to non-discriminatory treatment under federal statutes), and residency for over 40,000 Nicaraguans, Tefel v. Reno, 972 F.Supp. 608, 612-17 (S.D. Fla. 1997), rev’d on other grounds, Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 2657 (2000); and establishing standards for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, Commissioner v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (1990). Recently, Mr. Kurzban won a landmark case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit involving hundreds of EB-5 immigrant investor plaintiffs who obtained conditional residency through their investments in the United States. Chang v. United States, 327 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2003) (struck down retroactive application of new more restrictive standards for investors). Mr. Kurzban is the author of Kurzban’s Immigration Law Sourcebook. (For more information, click on the link). This book, available in its 13th Edition, is the most widely read single volume source book on immigration law, and is relied on by thousands of private practitioners, as well as government attorneys, immigration judges and other government employees.
Following Mr. Kurzban’s footsteps, all attorneys at KKWTP are held to the highest standard. Our associate attorneys have extensive experience in federal court litigation and related areas. They have been former judicial law clerks for federal courts at both the district court and court of appeals levels, past officials of AILA, frequent speakers at national and regional conferences for immigration attorneys, authors of numerous articles in academic and bar journals, and guest columnists and speakers on local and national media. Under the supervision of Mr. Kurzban, associate attorneys of our Immigration Department work tirelessly to defend the rights of our clients and have written winning briefs and made winning arguments before federal courts. For a list of recent cases we won, click on the following link. We handle the following types of cases in federal courts:
- Supreme Court Litigation - You may appeal any adverse decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, appeal to the Supreme Court is not automatic. You must first file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari (“cert.”) with the Supreme Court, which will only hear your appeal when it grants the petition. The U.S. Supreme Court typically only hears appeals raising significant policy implications affecting rights of numerous individuals or cases where, the U.S. Courts of Appeals reach different decisions on identical legal issues.
- Petitions for Review before U.S. Courts of Appeals - Persons who were issued orders of removal by an Immigration Judge and subsequently lost their administrative appeals before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) may challenge the adverse decisions of the BIA by filing a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals that has jurisdiction over the states where the removal proceedings were completed. For example, if your removal proceedings was completed in Miami, Florida, you must file your petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which has jurisdiction over states of Florida, Georgia and Alabama. U.S. Courts of Appeals are divided based on geography. There are twelve (12) judicial circuits defined by geography, including the eleven (11) "numbered" circuits and the D.C. Circuit, and the Federal Circuit that only hears specialized matters. The D.C. Circuit also hears appeals from agency decisions and rulemaking. The Federal Circuit hears appeals from specialized trial courts, primarily the United States Court of International Trade and the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also hears appeals from the district courts in patent cases and certain other specialized matters.
- Habeas Corpus Proceedings in U.S. District Courts - Persons may challenge removal orders, denial of bond, unlawful detention and other adverse decisions of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration Judges and the BIA by filing a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in federal district court.
- Mandamus Actions in U.S. District Courts - Persons may challenge delay of governmental action in adjudicating their immigration benefit applications by filing a mandamus action in federal district court.
- Class Action in U.S. District Courts - Persons may challenge unlawful governmental actions affecting numerous individuals who share similar backgrounds by filing a class action in federal district court.
- Denaturalization Proceedings in U.S. District Courts - Post-9/11, the U.S. government has been actively instituting denaturalization proceedings in federal district courts against naturalized U.S. citizens whom they otherwise would not have in the past. Denaturalization proceedings were typically brought against former-Nazi members and war criminals. However, most recently, a naturalized U.S. citizen has been denaturalized for his criminal conviction that occurred after he became a citizen on the theory that he lacked good moral character before becoming a citizen for failing to provide information to the government that he committed criminal acts for which he has not been arrested.
Removal Defense
Removal, formerly “deportation” or “exclusion,” can have extreme consequences on individuals and their families. Any person in the United States who is not a U.S. citizen may be subject to removal proceedings if he is deemed removable from the United States on any of the numerous grounds specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Legal immigrants and permanent residents are subject to severe immigration consequences if they are convicted of certain crimes (e.g., “aggravated felonies” and “crimes of moral turpitude”). In certain cases, even absent any criminal convictions, individuals seeking to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent resident may not be eligible to become permanent residents if they have been arrested for certain crimes. Even those who do not have any arrest or conviction record may be subject to removal proceedings if they have violated U.S. immigration law. Immigrants can suffer cancelled visas, detention, and removal proceedings. Even if you are removable, you may seek various forms of relief from removal if you qualify. A successful removal defense requires extensive knowledge of and skills in analyzing complex issues of criminal and immigration law and the forms of relief available to the applicant. Our attorneys have successfully terminated removal proceedings, obtained various forms of relief from removal, and obtained approval of adjustment of status applications involving criminal convictions. Our attorneys’ wide-ranging experience in removal defense and related areas can help anyone avoid or minimize harsh removal consequences.
Asylum, Withholding of Removal and Convention Against Torture
Pursuant to U.S. immigration law, any person considered to be a refugee may be eligible for three different types of relief – asylum, or withholding of removal or deferral of removal (both under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the U.N. Convention Against Torture). Persons with a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion may be eligible to apply for asylum or refugee status in the United States. Persons who establish that it is more likely than not their life or freedom would be threatened on account of one of these grounds may be eligible for withholding of removal or deferral of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. In addition, persons who satisfy the torture requirement may be eligible for withholding of removal or deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, without having to prove any of the five grounds required for asylum or withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Our attorneys have extensive experience in successfully representing clients in asylum and withholding of removal proceedings.
Other Related Areas of Representation
- Detention and Bond Proceedings - Our attorneys have an extensive track record in successful representation of clients in immigration detention by having them released from government custody on bond or on their own recognizance.
- Deferred Inspection – At ports of entry of the United States, immigration authorities refer persons seeking to enter the United States to “deferred inspection” when they cannot determine whether those persons are subject to any of the numerous grounds for inadmissibility. Our attorneys have helped numerous clients during their deferred inspection process to be admitted to the United States.
- Advice and Expert Testimony on Criminal Matters related to Immigration – Our attorneys provide advice, and expert testimony on all areas of immigration law including the immigration consequences of criminal matters.
Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt P.A. remains a relatively small law firm of ten attorneys because we only wish to concentrate in a few areas of the law. We at KKWTP deal with immigration matters with the skill, proficiency, and compassion for the "little guy" at KKWTP. To learn more about how we can help your case, contact us. Call us for your consultation. Located in Jacksonville and Miami, Florida, our Immigration practice spans the whole world, including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Germany, Haiti, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Israel, Korea, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Rewanda, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Venezuela and much more.
