ABOUT US

– 1997, The Beginning

Yacub Law Offices was created in June 1997 with three principles in mind: represent immigrants; take on the tough cases; and expand the rights of immigrants in deportation or removal proceedings.

In more than twenty years of practice, Yacub Law has met its founding principles. With only a handful of cases in 1997, Yacub Law represented immigrants from Central America, mostly El Salvador and Guatemala and later Honduras, and immigrants from the Eastern Horn of Africa, Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Sudan.

– Early Years, 2 Emblematic Cases

The first case involved an immigrant from Saudi Arabia who was accused of terrorism charges. The government used a section of the United States Code which permitted it to use secret evidence against the individual – evidence that could not be disclosed to the accused because of national security concerns.

Attorney Ivan Yacub saw the unfairness of the use of secret evidence to expel aliens and challenged the use of secret evidence in the administrative and federal court process. For challenging the use of secret evidence, Ivan Yacub was awarded a prestigious human rights award in the United States House of Representatives.

The second case involved the son of a former dictator. The government accused the client of gross human rights violation and Yacub Law Office, after a four day trial, was able to prevail.

– 2007 up to today, Success!

Yacub Law has been on the forefront of advocacy.  In 2007, Yacub Law was able to set precedent on the rights of the criminally accused in immigration proceedings. Matter of Sejas, 24 I&N Dec 236 (BIA 2007). And less than a decade later, Yacub Law was able to set precedent on the rights of aliens who apply for cancellation of removal and asylum. Jaghoori v. Holder,  772 F.3d 764 (4th Cir. 2014), Hernandez Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944 (4th Cir. 2015) and Zavaleta-Policiano v. Sessions, 873 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 2017).

These important victories paved the path for immigrants to stop their deportation. Prior to Matter of Sejas, lawful permanent residents who were convicted of domestic violence were routinely deported. After that decision, those immigrants were able to stop their deportation and the only punishment they received was thought the criminal justice system. In Jaghoori, the courts recognized the unfairness of punishing an immigrant retroactively. The issue in that case was whether an immigrant who accepted a guilty plea for a criminal offense, when at the time of accepting the guilty plea, the immigrant did not suffer immigration consequences. And in Hernandez Avalos and later Zavaleta-Policiano, Yacub Law led the way for attorneys who represent immigrants to be able to protect asylum seekers who suffered persecution at the hands of the criminal gangs in Central America. 

Yacub Law was honored to be invited to speak at numerous immigration law conferences, including the prestigious federal litigation conference, the Washington DC Chapter Conference for the American Immigration Lawyers’ Association and the National Annual Conference for the American Immigration Lawyers’ Association.

Under the Obama Administration, Yacub Law was invited to speak about DACA at the White House.

In the legal community, Yacub Law is known for the gold standard of advocacy. The firm has represented thousands of immigrants in the Washington, DC area and beyond. Upon the first meeting with the attorneys,  you will have a clear roadmap with various legal strategies for presenting your case.

“Similarly, in this case, Mara 18 threatened Hernandez in order to recruit her son into their ranks, but they also threatened Hernandez, rather than another person, because of her family connection to her son.”

Because any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that Hernandez’s maternal relationship to her son is at least one central reason for the two of the three threats, we hold that the BIA’s conclusion that these threats were not made ‘on account of’ her membership in her nuclear family is manifestly contrary to law and an abuse of discretion.

— State ex rel. Indiana Bar Ass’n v. Diaz, 838 N.E. 2nd 433, 445 (Ind. 2005).