COVID-19 UPDATE: USCIS HAS RESUMED APPOINTMENTS. CONSULTATIONS AVAILABLE BY PHONE OR VIDEO.
Tel: 732-516-1717
Toll Free: 888-404-5876
Experience, Accessibility, and Excellence
for Over 20 Years
“When it comes to immigration, I go to Paris and Angie–and trust me, I know a lot of lawyers all over the world.”–Renzo Gracie, Brazilian Jiujitsu and MMA Legend 
Read More
“Lee and Garasia are excellent lawyers, punctual and professional. They are dedicated to going above and beyond the usual level of service to meet your client’s needs. Their staff is very knowledgeable, friendly and polite. I would highly… recommend this firm to anyone.”
Read More
“I would definitely recommend Mr.Lee and Garasia as an immigration attorney because they did a great job with my case i.e. of Adjustment of Status (i-485). Mr. Lee helped us in each and every detailed information and prepared to the best of it. It was all well done and would like to appreciate.”
Read More
“I would like to thank my lawyer Mr Lee & Garasia and the staff for all immense help and patience throughout this entire process, I really appreciate your constant attention to my case, as well to my questions and my concerns. You’ve really made this process much more comprehensive to me, which I greatly appreciate.”
Read More
“Mr. Lee and Ms. Garasia did a great job with my renewal of my permanent residence application. They help prepare the paperwork with such a great attention to details and accuracy. I will recommend the law firm every time.”
Read More
“Mr. Lee did a great job with the renewal of my permanent residence application. My case was very time sensitive and they worked really fast on my case with great detail and accuracy. I will recommend the law firm every time.”
Read More
“I would recommend Attorney Paris Lee for anybody who needs immigration consultation. Mr. Lee is THE lawyer who respects and cares clients. Mr. Lee is professional and honest. Bottom line, preparation for the results and NO BS!”
Read More
“Stalin – Lee did a wonderful job, Got my wife her visa in one year. He is extremely helpful and knowledgeable. I would highly recommend him for all your immigration needs.”
Read More
“Hello. I appoint him as my immigration lawyer and that way he solved my cases was truly amazing. He was so honest and knowledgeable for his work. He solved my all family immigration issues and because of his effort we were able to get done our immigration work done successful. Thank you lee and garasia.”
Read More
“Lee & Garasia stand for accountability and responsibility. They are reliable, honest and are always constructively looking for a solution. A big thanks :)”
Read More

What Happens If I Sneak Back Into the US After Being Deported? | I-871 Reinstatement

| Aug 15, 2017 | Deportation

In general, most undocumented and illegal aliens apprehended inside the United States are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, this is not always the case. In some circumstances, a person who is caught by Immigration and Customs Enforcement may not be afforded an opportunity as procedural matter to see a judge, unless the individual is able to assert some sort of legal claim. It is critical to understand this because in many cases, a person will need to appreciate the risks of a certain course of action to remedy his/her status. For example, many people are not aware of or understand the doctrine of reinstatement. The regulations pertaining to reinstatement of removal orders can be found in Section 241(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under the statute:

If the Attorney General finds that an alien has reentered the United States illegally after having been removed or having departed voluntarily, under an order of removal, the prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed, the alien is not eligible and may not apply for any relief under this Act, and the alien shall be removed under the prior order at any time after the reentry.

What this essentially means is that if the government apprehends someone who has illegally reentered after having been previously removed, it may elect to administratively reinstate the prior order from its original date. Practically, this has many important consequences. The Department of Homeland Security will assert that since there is already an effective removal order, the individual is foreclosed from seeing a judge. Additionally, there are certain forms of relief that the individual may have possibly been eligible for that are no longer available. For example, the individual would be statutorily barred from applying for cancellation of removal, asylum and adjustment of status (although there are certain exceptions). Furthermore, the government is likely to vigorously oppose any endeavor to reopen a removal order, especially once the reinstatement has already taken place.

Notwithstanding the dire effect of a reinstatement, there are some limited things that a person in this situation can do. Firstly, the individual is afforded thirty days to have the order reviewed by the court of appeals if he/she files an appeal. (However, the person must assert this right; it is not granted automatically.). Secondly, if an individual served with a reinstatement order expresses a fear of going back to his/his country, he/she may be entitled to a “reasonable fear” interview conducted by the asylum office. If the person is determined to have a reasonable fear of harm/persecution, he/she will be referred to immigration court for a withholding of removal claim/Convention Against Torture, depending on the basis of the claim. Additionally, reinstatement will not always apply. Every element needs to be satisfied, such as a prior order, departure, and illegal re-entry. For instance, someone who has been ordered deported or removed but never left the US is not subject to a reinstatement of removal order. If someone was denied entry but not summarily removed-ie., through an expedited removal order-and then sneaks into the country without inspection, he/she is also not subject to reinstatement. There are also statutory and judicial exemptions which cover certain protected classes like CSS, LULAC, NACARA, and HRIFA.

In many ways, dealing with a reinstatement order when it is already a fait accompli places the individual at a severe disadvantage given how the law handicaps any attempts to reverse it. The better, more prudent strategy is to determine at the outset whether an individual is exposed to such a charge. This involves securing a complete copy of the individual’s immigration records and understanding his/her case history. If, after careful analysis, it is determined that a person is vulnerable to a charge of reinstatement, that person can make an informed decision whether to risk exposure.

The above is general information only and not to be relied upon as legal advice. It does not create an attorney client relationship nor should it be relied upon as advice in lieu of consultation with an attorney.