USCIS News RSS

powered by

Immigration News RSS

powered by

• About Us
• Firm Profile
• Membership
• Rating
• Consultation
• Testimonials

Immigration lawyer Svetlana Schreiber is a member of the following organizations:

American Bar Association with approximately 370,000 members is the world's largest voluntary professional association. The Association has long served a dual role as advocate for the legal profession and for the public. With the growing complexity of society and our legal system, the Association's public role has gained both emphasis and breadth. The ABA is comprised principally of practicing lawyers, judges, court administrators, law teachers, public service attorneys and many non-practicing lawyers who are business executives, government officials, etc. The ABA represents state and local bar associations as well as practitioners in specialized areas of the law. It represents affiliated, law-related organizations and groups with specialized interests or needs such as administrative law judges, lawyers in the armed forces, and minority and women's bar associations.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is the national bar association of over 3,900 attorneys who practice immigration law. AILA Member attorneys represent tens of thousands of U.S. families who have applied for permanent residence for their spouses, children, and other close relatives to lawfully enter and reside in the United States. AILA Members also represent thousands of U.S. businesses and industries which sponsor highly skilled foreign workers seeking to enter the United States on a temporary or permanent basis. AILA Members also represent foreign students, entertainers, athletes, and asylum seekers, often on a pro bono basis. Svetlana Schreiber and Michele Norton are both members of AILA.

The Ohio State Bar Association is the state organization of the legal profession. It is comprised principally of practicing lawyers, judges, court administrators, law teachers, public service attorneys and many non-practicing lawyers who are business executives, government officials, etc. The OSBA represents practitioners in specialized areas of the law. It also represents affiliated, law-related organizations and groups with specialized interests or needs such as administrative law judges, lawyers in the armed forces, and minority and women's bar associations.
Immigration attorneys Svetlana Schreiber, Michele Norton and Tom Gilbert are all members of the Ohio State Bar Association.

The New York State Bar Association is comprised principally of practicing lawyers, judges, court administrators, law teachers, public service attorneys and many non-practicing lawyers who are business executives, government officials, etc. The OSBA represents practitioners in specialized areas of the law. It also represents affiliated, law-related organizations and groups with specialized interests or needs such as administrative law judges, lawyers in the armed forces, and minority and women's bar associations. Svetlana Schreiber has been admitted to practice in New York State and is an active member of the New York State Bar Association.

Attorney Rating

Attorney Svetlana Schreiber has been awarded an ® Preeminent™ 5.0 out of 5 from Martindale-Hubbell®.

"It is our honor to share this distinction with Svetlana Schreiber & Associates LPA."

Martindale-Hubbell®

AV Peer Review Rating - shows that a lawyer has reached the height of professional excellence. He or she has usually practiced law for many years, and is recognized for the highest levels of skill and integrity.

• A - Very High to Preeminent Legal Ability Rating
• V - Very High General Ethical Standards Rating

[ mouse over picture to see details]

Attorney Svetlana Schreiber Esq. has been awarded an AV® Preeminent™ 5.0 out of 5 from Martindale-Hubbell® for 2009.

Attorney Svetlana Schreiber Esq. has been awarded an AV® Preeminent™ 5.0 out of 5 from Martindale-Hubbell® for five years 2005-2010.

For nearly 135 years, Martindale-Hubbell has been the most respected source of authoritative and dependable biographical information on members of the legal community in the United States, Canada, and worldwide.

In the letter sent to our Office, congratulating us on the recognition, Martindale-Hubbell explains:

"The AV rating, which identifies a lawyer with very high to preeminent legal ability, is a reflection of your expertise, experience, integrity and overall professional excellence. Our ratings, established by attorneys for attorneys, clearly indicate you demonstrate the highest professional and ethical standards."

"Considered an important tool in the practice of law, the ratings are an invaluable resource for engaging the services of an attorney. They represent a widely regarded measure of esteem for which attorneys strive.

Read more about the ratings ...

Immigration Judge granted asylum to female from Egypt based on her sexual orientation. The Immigration Judge argued that to send someone back to such a religiously conservative country with such strong animosity towards homosexuals would be tantamount to torture. The Court also granted the client's mother withholding of removal arguing that her alleged compliance with her daughters sexual orientation would put her at risk

Client from Tanzania granted asylum based on the murder of her parents for allegedly practicing witchcraft. We were able to demonstrate to the court that the alleged practice of witchcraft in sub-Saharan Africa is still widespread and alleged witches / traditional healers are often persecuted for any and all maladies which befall the community. In the present case, the client was in the United States when both parents were killed at the hands of a angry mob. We demonstrated that despite the client's own religious convictions, she would be perceived as a witch herself.

Immigration Judge granted asylum to Egyptian women who conceived a child out of wedlock. We successfully argued that such an action would be perceived as a stain on the petitioner's family honor which could lead to her being targeted by members of her own family. Arguing that a women's virtue is of paramount importance to her status within Egyptian society, we convinced the Court that to return the unwed mother and child to Egypt would place both at serious risk of harm.

Asylum grant for woman from Pakistan who had been the victim of extreme domestic at the hands of her husband. The client's husband, a police officer, had extensive ties to both the local and national political parties within Pakistan and had no fear of prosecution for the actions taken against his wife. The client, who was repeatedly raped and beaten by her husband had no chance of finding protection within Pakistan. Worst yet, the Petitioner's son had also been targeted by her husband.

Approval of K2 visa after client mother and husband had divorce. Mother and son came to the United States from the Ukraine. Mother was granted her greencard, her son, initially was not. We convinced the Service that based on the abuse both the mother and son had endured at that hands of her USC husband, the USC petitioner's affidavit of support for the issuance of the visa was ultimately not necessary.

Motion to reopen granted in proceedings after we convinced the Court that the previous attorney erred in withdrawing the Petitioner's asylum case as being time barred. The Petitioner, who was a minor at the time, erroneously had her Asylum application withdrawn by her previous attorney who failed to realize that an asylum application filed by a minor cannot be time barred under 8 CFR §§ 208.4(a)(5)(ii), 1208.4 (a)(5)(ii). The case is currently pending before the EOIR Court.

Motion to Reopen granted after proving client clearly did not receive notice of his immigration hearing. Client entered the United States in 1996 on his border crosser card and was granted permission from the Service to travel outside of the Border area to visit friends and family in to Detroit, Mi. While in Detroit, the client was stopped and confronted by Immigration Officers. The client explained to the Officers that he has a legal entry into the USA and that his Border Crossing card was at his friends house. The Officers he encountered apparently did not believe him and (understandably) assumed he was here in the USA illegally. During his custody, the client was asked for his biographic information, and biometrics were taken. After the Officers had fingerprinted him, they acknowledged that he was listed in their system as the holder of a valid Border crosser card, however the Officers served him with certain documents and told him that he was allowed to leave. They informed him that he would receive notice in the mail at the address given.

The client resided at the address for nearly a year During the time he never received any notice from either the immigration court or the immigration services regarding his case. The client assumed that the Service was able to corroborate the fact that he was who he claimed to be, did have a valid Border Crosser card and was in valid status when detained by the Service. The client subsequently moved to Toledo, Ohio and married his USC wife in 2005. In February 2009, client met with us to discuss filing for his greencard. At that time, the client explained what had previously happened with the Service. Counsel checked the 800 telephone number using the Alien number listed on his border crosser card, the only Alien number he thought he had, to see if he was ever placed in proceedings. According to Court records, he was never in proceedings under the Alien number listed on his Border Crossing card. Despite this, the client was ordered removed October 1997. We successfully argued that, from the record, it was clear that he never received notice of his prior hearing and thus did not have adequate notice of his previous hearings. The client's I-130 was approved and he is awaiting his greencard appointment.

Motion to reopen proceedings granted for client for Sri Lanka who originally failed to attend his Immigration Master Hearing in New York City after his train into the city was delayed for roughly two hours due to mechanical failures. The client originally filed an appeal of the Immigration Judge's denial of his case with the Board of Immigration Appeals. Using the repair / work records for the train line that day, we argued successfully that the client's failure to attend his Immigration hearing was clearly beyond his control and the Court was in error for ordering him removed.

Immigration Judge granted cancellation of removal to LPR placed in proceedings because of a firearms conviction. Client is the spouse of a USC and father of five USC children. The Immigration Judge grant means that the client will keep his LPR status and be able to remain with his family. Client was convicted for having his gun stored in the wrong place in his car. This conviction subjected the client to both removal from the United States and mandatory detention by immigration until his case was heard by the Immigration Judge. While you do not have to be a citizen to own a gun, it is not a good idea to have one. Immigration law holds that any and all gun related offenses are a deportable offenses. This is why our client was in jail facing deportation for having his gun stored improperly. Luckily, the client met the basic criteria for cancellation of removal, which include 5 years as a permanent resident and 7 years of physical presence in the United States, and was able to show that the positive factors outweighed the negative factors in his case.

Immigration Judge granted permanent resident status to disabled client with approved VAWA petition.

Immigration Judge grants Motion to Reopen In Absentia Order for client, who arrived late to court because of road construction and street closings. Client was coming from Columbus to Cleveland for court. He left Columbus more than 4 hours before his hearing to account for traffic issues. Unfortunately, as he approached Cleveland, major road construction kept him from reaching the city in time. Then, once in the city, a major event that had a number of city streets closed also kept the client from reaching the court. In the end, the client showed up 5 to 10 minutes after the Immigration Judge had already issued the order. Fortunately, the Immigration Judge recognized that these issues were outside the client's control and the Immigration Judge reopened the case.

Immigration Judge grants Motion to Reopen old In Absentia Order that no one realized existed. Client was in proceedings and Immigration Judge terminated proceedings with consent from government attorney based on approved VAWA petition. At client's adjustment interview, officer asked her if she knew she had an In Absentia Order from the 90's. She said no as she did not know about the order. Apparently, client had been picked up during a workplace raid after she first arrived to the United States. However, immigration released her right away without giving her any documents because she had young children. At the time the client initially encountered immigration in the 90's, she did not speak or understand English. She had no idea what was going on and the immigration officers that had taken her along with the other people working at the factory did not speak her language fluently. Therefore, when immigration released her, the client did not know that immigration was going to seek to deport her. Moreover, immigration did not take her information down correctly, so none of the documents issued by immigration reached our client. With no knowledge or notice of the fact that she had to go to court, our client did not appear at her court hearing in the 90's. Moreover, when immigration placed her proceedings in 2007, no one discovered the old case. It was only after the client's fingerprints were ran for her adjustment and a more detailed background check was ran that immigration discovered the prior case file and the old order. After receiving the information from the immigration officer, our office immediately sought to review and acquire a copy of this old file. We, then, filed a motion to reopen in order to clear this outstanding matter, so our client could get her permanent resident status. Based on the fact that there was clearly no notice to the client, Immigration Judge reopened the old case.

Immigration Judge granted 237(a)(1)(H) waiver for client, who mistakenly believed he could marry after he received his immigrant visa at the consulate, but before entering the United States. Client's father had petitioned for him as an unmarried son. Client did not understand that the process was not complete until he actually arrived in the United States and that, by marrying, his immigrant visa was no longer valid.

Immigration Judge terminated proceedings for mother and two children after we succeeded in obtaining U classification for family.

We succeeded in closing a book with immigration for a client, who after 20 years, finally obtained citizenship. The client had been through it all. He had taken voluntary departure at one time. He came back on an Immigrant Visa. He ended up back in proceedings based on a conviction a number of years later. He was ordered deported by an Immigration Judge. His case was successfully reopened. He, then, filed for several forms of relief and, after a long battle, he was found eligible and was granted Cancellation of Removal. After his grant of cancellation, he waited several years to make sure he met the requirements for citizenship and, this year, he was sworn in as a citizen.

Won appeal from denial of naturalization for a client and client was sworn in as a citizen after a nearly two year struggle with Immigration because of ex-spouse's fraud.