Cases of Interest

Irish Lesbian & Gay Org. v. Bratton, 882 F. Supp. 315 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (regarding the right of the Irish Lesbian & Gay Organization to march in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade).

In re R.M. Children, 165 Misc. 2d 441, 627 N.Y.S.2d 869 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1995) (rejecting the proposed testimony of a so-called “sex abuse validator” to corroborate a claim of child sex abuse)

People v. Arbeiter, 169 Misc. 2d 771, 650 N.Y.S.2d 915 (N.Y. App. Term 1996) (dismissing 60 “passive” resisting arrest charges arising from protests against the exclusion of LGBT groups from the St. Patrick’s Day Parade. With co-counsel Mary D. Dorman).

Borges v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 398 (3d Cir. 2005) (recognizing that the time within which to file a motion to reopen an in absentia removal order in Immigration Court can be tolled in cases involving ineffective assistance of counsel or fraud)

Carossia v. City of New York, 39 A.D.3d 429, 835 N.Y.S.2d 102 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2007) (vacating a $740,000 verdict against the Administration for Childrens’ Service by parents wrongfully accused of child sex abuse, on the basis of immunity and lack of a “special relationship”)

Bustamante v. Napolitano, 582 F.3d 403 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2009) (holding that DHS does not have jurisdiction to deny a naturalization application once a naturalization petition has been filed with the US District Court)

Lord v. Napolitano, 324 Fed. Appx. 115, (2d Cir. N.Y. 2009) (denying a motion for counsel fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, with a useful discussion about when the government’s position is substantially justified).

Gomes v. Holder, 372 Fed. Appx. 170 (2d Cir. 2010) (granting motion to reopen removal proceeeding based on changed country conditions in Bangladesh)

Albunio v City of New York, 16 N.Y.3d 472, 947 N.E.2d 135, 922 N.Y.S.2d 244 (N.Y. 2011) (upholding finding of discrimination in favor of two NYPD officers who had opposed anti-gay discrimination by their superior officer, in violation of the NYC Human Rights Law. Co-counsel with Mary D. Dorman).

Izquierdo v. AG, 442 Fed. Appx. 708 (3d Cir. 2011) (outlining proper standard for motion to reopen sexual orientation-based asylum case based on changed country conditions)

Simon v. Holder, 654 F.3d 440 (3d Cir. 2011) (requiring motion for continuance of removal proceedings to be granted where the person is the beneficiary of an approved visa petition)

Albunio v. City of New York, 23 N.Y.3d 65, 11 N.E.3d 1104, 989 N.Y.S.2d 1 (N.Y. 2014) (construction of retainer agreements in cases involving contingency fee arrangements and court-awarded counsel fees)

Borges v Placeres, 123 A.D.3d 611, 2 N.Y.S.3d 75 (1st Dep’t 2014) (upholding a $1.2 million verdict in a legal malpractice case against an immigration lawyer, and clarifying the standard to be applied to claims of legal malpractice based on incorrect immigration advice)

In re Placeres, 578 B.R. 505, 523 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017) (denying discharge of legal malpractice judgment for making materially false statements under oath)

Mahmood v. Nielsen, 312 F. Supp. 3d 417, 424 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (finding that continued detention of non-citizen violated due process when there was no likelihood of removal, granting writ of habeas corpus, and ordering release after 282 days in custody)

Martinez v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (finding that reinstatement of removal order was issued in violation of constitutional rights, granting writ of habeas corpus, and ordering plaintiff non-citizen released after five months unlawful detention by ICE)

Martinez et al. v. USA, 7:22-cv-00336 (S.D.N.Y. 2024) (Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit arising out of five-month long unlawful detention by ICE, brought by detainee and his children, settled for $400,000)

United States v. Donkor, 507 F. Supp. 3d 423  (E.D.N.Y. 2020) (finding that 5 year statute of limitations does not apply to denaturalization proceedings under  8 U.S.C. § 1451(a))

Althnaibat v. Wolf, 2020 WL 4883890 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2020) (granting motion to remand naturalization case to USCIS but with leave to reopen, and imposing strict deadlines on USCIS to complete naturalization process)

Posada Cortes v. Mayorkas, 1:21-cv-07287 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (Lawsuit challenging denial of O-1 “extraordinary ability” petition, resulting in USCIS reopening and approving petition).

Kahir v. Mayorkas et al, 1:21-cv-02846 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (Settled naturalization action with USCIS agreeing to approve naturalization application despite earlier finding of ineligibility because of material support to terrorist organization)

Monaghan v. Mayorkas et al., 1:23-cv-01334-JLR (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (lawsuit challenging Customs and Border Protection’s incorrect inadmissibility finding and visa revocation; matter settled with court-ordered stipulation that CBP would vacate an earlier finding of inadmissibility)

Herrera v. Mayorkas, 4:24-cv-03000 (D. Nebraska) (Lawsuit challenging denial of EB-1 “extraordinary ability” I-140, resulting in USCIS reopening and approving petition)

MM v. Mayorkas, 2024 WL 1795766, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2024) (granting motion to proceed under a pseudonym in an asylum mandamus action)

Titichamale v. Garland, 2024 WL 119647, at *2 (2d Cir. Jan. 11, 2024) (remanding immigration case to Board of Immigration Appeals for it to apply categorical approach to criminal conviction in determining eligibility for cancellation of removal, and to consider whether perceived gang members constitute a particular social group for asylum purposes)