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

Notice to Appear Missing Immigration Court’s Address Does Not Warrant Termination

| Feb 3, 2020 | Immigration Court, Immigration Court Cases

In yet another decision diluting the Supreme Court’s holding in Perreira v. Sessions, the Board of Immigration Appeals recently ruled that a Notice to Appear that does not include the address of the Immigration Court or where the government will file the notice does not deprive the Immigration Court of subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. In Matter of Vargas, 27 I & N Dec. 745 (BIA 2020), the Respondent argued that the lack of information in the Notice to Appear rendered the charging document invalid, thereby defective for purposes of opening a matter before the court’s jurisdiction. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) argued, on the other hand, that the defects were cured by a subsequent Notice of Hearing that was later sent to the parties that informed them of the time, date, and place of the hearing.

In light of the BIA’s previous decision in Matter of Bermuduz-Cota, 27 I & N Dec. 441 (BIA 2018), which dealt with a similar issue, this ruling is not a surprise. Closely hewing to the logic of Bermudez-Cota, the court holds that initial defects in charging documents can be remedied as long as the subject of the hearing is later on notified of the missing information. The deficiencies are not so fundamental as to warrant termination. In fact, the court characterizes the regulations dictating the notice requirements as “claim-processing” or “internal docketing” rules which do not implicate jurisdiction in the subject matter way; rather, when jurisdiction is mentioned, it refers to administrative and procedural matters-that is, claim processing matters, and not the court’s power to hear a case.

This is important because it fortifies another bulwark in the government’s effort to transform the courts into just another apparatus. It also seems to contradict and obfuscate the clear, unambiguous language of Perreira. But unless and until the Supreme Court speaks again on this issue, this is just one in what is likely a line of lower court decisions cases semantically dismantling its holding.