Feiner & Lavy P.C., Attorneys at Law is an Immigration Law Firm located in New York City that provides legal immigration services to individuals, employers and corporations in NYC and from around the world who are looking to obtain work visas, work authorizations, permanent residency, US citizenship, asylum, waivers and defense from deportation and removal. Our roots began when Michael Feiner, a prominent immigration lawyer in NYC founded this immigration law firm over 40 years ago, in turn, helping thousands of clients obtain immigration status in the United States. Feiner & Lavy P.C. with Yaniv Lavy, Esq. a US Immigration Lawyer and the principal attorney continues the tradition and reputation we have earned. Our NYC based immigration law firm continues from the same location, just across the street from the Immigration building in NYC – 26 Federal Plaza, and focus our practice on various immigration matters, such as work visas, work authorizations, permanent residency, US citizenship, asylum, waivers, and defense from deportation and removal.
We are vastly educated in the area of immigration law in NYC and we continue to take on some of the most challenging cases to find resolutions for our clients. To us, each immigration case is a chance to help an immigrant, a non-immigrant, a permanent resident or a US citizen who is looking to live and work in the US, unite with their family members, seeking a greater opportunity or is hoping to avoid being removed and deported from the United States. We know that what we do is more than practice immigration law and are doing our best to find life-changing solutions for individuals in need of immigration assistance.
We want to know what your goals are, and we will take the time to become familiar with your case. Personalized legal immigration service is what you need, and our team is able to offer the attention to details, caring, representation and persistence that gain results. You are likely going to have questions and our staff is here to offer you answers in a timely manner. We believe that it is in the best interest of our immigration clients to be educated and we make a point to help them better understand the legal side of their case and inform them of any advancements along the way.
You should be aware that immigration law is very complex and has been described as a “labyrinth almost as impenetrable as the Internal Revenue Code.” See Escobar-Grijalva v. I.N.S., 206 F.3d 1331, 1334 (9th Cir.2000).
In addition in Lok v. INS, where the 2nd Circuit noted that “Immigration laws bear a “striking resemblance …[to] King Minos’s labyrinth in ancient Crete. The Tax Laws and the Immigration and Nationality Acts are examples we have cited of Congress’s ingenuity in passing statutes certain to accelerate the aging process of judges.” E. Hull, Without Justice For All 107 (1985) – “With only a small degree of hyperbole, the immigration laws have been termed ‘second only to the Internal Revenue Code in complexity.’ A lawyer is often the only person who could thread the labyrinth.”.
In the case of Castro-O’Ryan v. INS, the 9th CircuitCourt stated – “Immigration law is very complex.”
In 2003, the Second Circuit Court of Appeal, in Drax v. Reno noted that” This case vividly illustrates the labyrinthine character of modern immigration law-a maze of hyper-technical statutes and regulations that engender waste, delay, and confusion for the Government and petitioners alike. The inscrutability of the current immigration law system and the interplay of the numerous amendments and alterations to that system by Congress during the pendency of this case have spawned years of litigation, generated two separate opinions by the District Court, and consumed significant resources of this Court. With regret and astonishment, we determine, as explained more fully below, that this case still cannot be decided definitively but must be remanded to the District Court, and then to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), for further proceedings.”
Many courts have held that access to counsel and the right to seek a remedy when counsel does not
provide effective assistance are critical elements of a fair hearing:
“[Noncitizens] in immigration proceedings . . . ‘have a due-process right to a fair hearing.’ . . . This is true even though a [noncitizen] may not have a protected liberty interest in discretionary relief.”) (quoting Solis-Chavez v. Holder, 662 F.3d 462, 466 (7th Cir. 2011));
In Solis-Chavez v. Holder, 662 F.3d 462, 466 (7th Cir. 2011) (noting that noncitizens “have a due-process right to a fair hearing” and that “[t]he BIA has a body of case law holding that an [ noncitizen]’s due-process rights can be violated by his attorney’s ineffective assistance in removal proceedings”).
©2020 Feiner & Lavy, P.C. All Rights Reserved.