Levin Philip M Law Office

Information may not be reliable

Serving Businesses and Families Around the World
With an exclusive focus on immigration law since 1991, Philip Levin & Associates provides comprehensive client service for businesses, families, foreign nationals residing or studying in the U.S. and overseas executives, professionals, traders and investors seeking citizenship, lawful permanent residence or visas for entry in to the United States.
Based in the San Francisco Bay Area, the firm works with businesses of all sizes and in all industries, utilizing its experience to develop winning immigration strategies to assist its clients in recruiting and retaining their employees. Additionally, throughout its history, Philip Levin & Associates has helped hundreds of families immigrate to the U.S. The firm also specializes in deportation defense and naturalization matters.
Contact one of our attorneys to learn about the scope of our practice and how we can guide you through your immigration case. For businesses and foreign nationals seeking employment-based entry, we can advise you about the most effective visa options for your specific circumstances, and ensure that your documentation is complete and accurate. In today's international market, our office partners with in-house legal teams, law firms, and/or Human Resources departments to ensure that your cases are handled professionally, quickly, and efficiently.
Comprehensive Immigration Advice — Nonimmigrant Visas and Green Cards
A particular strength of our practice is our experience in assisting international businesses in bringing their employees temporarily or permanently to the U.S. If you or your company is opening an office in the U.S. or transferring an executive or specially trained employee to one that already exists, we have the experience you need. In particular, the firm principal is recognized as an expert for those Treaty Traders and Investors seeking entry under E-1 or E-2 visas.
We can also advise nonimmigrants working in California under temporary employment visas about their rights and responsibilities. If you are interested in obtaining permanent residence in the U.S., we can help you and your employer with the necessary PERM labor certification. We also advise individuals and families about immigration matters ranging from fiancé/fiancée visas to defense in all aspects of removal and deportation defense.
Whether you need help with a complex labor certification problem, have immigration compliance issues in your Human Resources department, or require advice about the surest path toward naturalization and citizenship, we can advise and represent you. Contact one of our lawyers to learn more about our ability to serve your needs.

On July 12, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Perdomo v. Holder, 2010 WL 2721524 (9th Cir. 2010) that women in Guatemala may constitute a particular social group for purposes of qualifying for political asylum under INA 101(a)(42).
In Matter of Velasquez, 25 I. & N. Dec. 278 (BIA 2010), the Board of Immigration Appeals found that a conviction for misdemeanor assault and battery against a family or household member in the state of Virginia is not categorically a crime of violence per 18 USC A 16(a) and thus does not qualify as a crime of domestic violence for purpose of removability under INA 237 (a)(2)(E)(i).
In two related cases issued the same day, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) discussed the petty offense exception as a bar to eligibility for cancellation of removal under INA 240A (b)(1)(c) in the situation where an applicant has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). In Matter of Cortez 25 I. & N. Dec. 201 (BIA 2010), the BIA held that one convicted of a CIMT where the sentence could have been for a year or more is convicted of a crime described under INA 237(a)(2) and, as a result, becomes ineligible for cancellation of removal; this is true despite possible qualification for the petty offense exception of INA 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II). Similarly, the BIA found, in Matter of Pedroza, 25 I. & N. Dec. 312 (BIA 2010), that a conviction for a CIMT where the sentence could not have been 365 days or more will not render an applicant ineligible for cancellation of removal if he or she qualifies for the petty offense exception.
In Matter of Koljenovic, 25 I. & N. Dec. 219 (BIA 2010), the Board of Immigration Appeals held that one who enters the U.S. without inspection and subsequently adjusts status to lawful permanent residence has "been admitted" as of the date of adjustment and must thereafter satisfy the seven-year continuous residence requirement in order to be eligible for a waiver under INA § 212(h).

In Matter of Richardson, 25 I. & N. Dec. 226 (BIA 2010), the Board of Immigration Appeals found that INA § 101(a)(43)(U), which holds, in part, that an attempt or conspiracy to commit any "aggravated felony" enumerated in § 101(a)(43) is itself an aggravated felony, does not require an overt act in furtherance of the crime for the conviction to qualify as an aggravated felony under the statute.

In Matter of Alania-Martin, 25 I. & N. Dec. 231 (BIA 2010), the Board of Immigration Appeals held that someone eligible to adjust status under INA § 245(i) is not barred by prior unlawful employment per INA § 245(c), finding § 245(i) to be a blanket waiver of any § 245(c) ineligibilities.

In Matter of B-Y-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 236 (BIA 2010), the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) discussed at length the issues of adverse credibility and frivolous application findings in asylum proceedings before the Immigration Judge (IJ). The Board initially held that when credibility and frivolousness findings do not overlap, separate findings as to each are necessary and that, because a determination of a frivolous application requires findings as to "deliberate fabrication" and "materiality" not necessary for a determination of adverse credibility, the IJ must separately address the issue of frivolousness. The Board similarly held that the IJ must separately address an applicant's explanations for inconsistencies and discrepancies when making a frivolousness determination as to how they may affect the "deliberate fabrication" and "materiality" components of such a determination.