Andres Mejer: So let’s talk about George now. George last week had a trial on cancellation of removal. Now like many of our clients. They first start with another attorney or a Notario who screws up their case and then they come back. So in Georgia scenario. He should never have been putting in more proceedings when he filed he had three U.S. citizen children. That’s correct. They filed for asylum. He didn’t really have a valid. He didn’t have a solid claim for asylum. And the way the petition was prepared was crap. They just said I just want to be put in removal proceedings. So in the context of George what he needed to do is say listen. I’m afraid to go back to my country. Why am I afraid. Or because something bad happened to me already or I have a really good reason to suspect something bad will happen. By whom. Who’s the actor government or a group. The government can’t control. And why. Why did something bad happen by the government or the group go we can’t control and it has to be for a protected reason, race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group, has to be one of those five. In George’s scenario, he filed asylum. It was not well documented at all. It was not well presented at all. His attorney told not to go to the hearing and he didn’t and needed this attorney. He was placed in removal proceedings. And here’s the problem. So now he’s going to go with the intention of proving cancellation of removal. So some people call it the 10-year law. There really isn’t a 10-year law. It’s a defense to deportation but it’s not just 10 years. There are four requirements. One in the U.S. more in 10 years. Second good more person-third not convicted of a crime that would disqualify you. And the kicker is for extreme and unusual hardship to a qualifying relative that could be a parent could be a spouse. Or it could be children. Now here he has his wife is undocumented and he had three U.S. citizen kids. The problem is when he started that process he didn’t have extreme and unusual hardship. His three kids were healthy. None of them were under the care of a doctor. They weren’t taking any medicine. They had no emotional problems. They had no financial problems. George is a really good businessman and he’s opened multiple businesses and he does work very well for him and for his family. But he didn’t have extreme and unusual hardship. What the attorney did was malpractice. Should never have put him in that scenario. But the process took so long. Seven or eight years later his middle child was diagnosed with a learning disability. He had what’s called an IEP Individual Education Plan. So school was giving him services, psychologists therapists, occupational speech, a variety of different needs. That lasted for three years. Then the school said he’s now up to snuff. He had certain challenges he’s overcome those challenges. He doesn’t need it now. Oh, what do we do? Had extreme and unusual hardship than didn’t have extremely unusual hardship. So we argued listen he’s being evaluated. This may change at any time. Just like a change before it could change again. He’s still growing. We also showed that he was here for 10 years of tax returns businesses. He has one child who’s in who’s 20 years old. So he was here at least 20 years ago. So his testimony affidavits the fact he was here for 10 years not hard to prove a good moral person. Well and no disqualifying crime. That’s simple. We get a background search and we show that he’s not been convicted of anything that would disqualify him. Extreme and unusual hardship. Well, how do you prove that? Every case is different but does you. There are many factors but there are three principal ones, financial, emotional, medical. So we’re talking about a scenario where I’m deported. I’m going back to my case in Chile. My children either stay here or come with me. And I have to show how they’re going to suffer in this case my wife how my wife and my kids are going to suffer if I’m in Chile. So if I get deported and my kids come with me well here they have, their U.S. citizens, they have insurance, they have treatment, they have good doctors, they have good hospitals, if there’s a problem they have an opportunity to have it fixed here where in my country they may not have access to those things. In the context of a learning disability. Well look it’s not that Chile. I honestly don’t know if Chile has that assistance they probably do but only for, probably really expensive. It’s certainly provided by the state. And access is probably limited. So if I don’t live in an urban area like San Diego I may not have access to that at all. So that could be extreme and unusual hardship. If you have any questions put it down below. Subscribe to our channel if there’s a subject you want us to talk about in the future. Put it in the comments we review it and maybe we’ll talk about it in the weeks to come.