+1 818 382-3333+1 818 382-3333

High Profile cases

Ask any athlete whom they like to compete against and they would tell you against the best. As attorneys, we love our work and each case receives or full devotion and attention, but we feel a certain rush, a higher pride, when we take on higher profile and difficult cases.

Private Immigration Bill

The Lozano Siblings

Shawn Sedaghat :


It was perhaps because of this passion, that the very first case I took on was that of the Lozano siblings. In 1997, I read an article in the Los Angeles times about 3 siblings. Fauricio, Sergio and Ana Lozano, from El Salvador, who had arrived in Los Angeles and had been apprehended at the airport as being here without the necessary documentation.  They had been part of their mother's application, to reside permanently in the United States, which was filed for by the youngsters’ grandmother. However, prior to the family's arrival here, their mother Ana Ruth died in El Salvador after receiving a visa for her and her three teenagers; something they had waited 8 years. Their grandmother Zoila Lozano brought the teens home to LA where they were told by the immigration authorities that the visa was cancelled with their mother’s death and that they had to return to El Salvador where only their abusive father remained. 

I represented this family on a pro bono basis, which means at no cost. Although the younger children could obtain benefits if they were found eligible under the Special Juvenile Immigrant category, after they were made wards of the children's court, the older brother was already over 18, and could not meet the eligibility requirement due to that. The 2 younger siblings eventually, and after much hard work, obtained their permanent residency through the Special Juvenile Status, but for Sergio, the only remaining possibility was a "private bill". In other words, a law that would apply to only him, granting him permanent residency.  This private bill was proposed by senator Diane Feinstein in 2000 and soon thereafter, Sergio was a permanent resident of the United States.  Obtaining this was one of the most memorable days for me as a lawyer, and it happened so early in my career. 

Some of Our Immigration Cases at the 9th Cir. Court of Appeals


MORALES ALEGRIA v. GONZALES   9th. Circuit Court of Appeals  June 6, 2006

9th. Circuit precedent case


Decided by a panel of the Ninth Circuit on June 06, 2006.  Petitioner sought review of a BIA's dismissal of his appeal from a finding of an IJ that his conviction for the offense of forgery under California Penal Code section 476 rendered him removable as an aggravated felon under section 101(a)(43)(R).  At issue in this finding was whether section 476 statutory requirements were broader than those of the immigration statute.  The Court found that section 476 does require knowledge of the fictitious nature of the instrument, and therefore, it is not broader than the federal definition of "offense relating to...forgery" for purposes of qualifying as an "aggravated felony".

BAGHDASARYAN v. HOLDER  9th. Circuit Court of Appeals,  No. 05-72416.   January 13, 2010

9th. Circuit precedent case


Armen Baghdasaryan (“Baghdasaryan”) is a native and citizen of Armenia. Baghdasariyan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Baghdasaryan was threatened, harassed, fined, detained, and beaten because he opposed the systemic government corruption, including the extortion of bribes, perpetrated by General H. Hakopian, a powerful politician and government official. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition in part and remand.

The BIA found Baghdasaryan to be credible. Accordingly, we must accept Baghdasaryan’s testimony as true. See Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Testimony must be accepted as true in the absence of an explicit adverse credibility finding.”).


In Armenia, Baghdasaryan operated a small business making and distributing audio tapes from his home. In September 1995, Baghdasaryan moved his business to a store in a local market owned by General Hakopian, a well-known general at the Ministry of Defense, who later became a deputy of the National Assembly. The market was similar to a swap meet, with hundreds of vendors selling items in a large area. Baghdasaryan obtained the proper permit to sell his goods, paid tax on his sales, and remitted rent to General Hakopian for use of his space in the market. The record does not show whether General Hakopian was entitled to keep the entire amount of rent payments for himself.

One month later, Samvel Hakopian (“Samvel”), General Hakopian’s nephew, and several other men came to Baghdasaryan’s store and demanded $100 per month on behalf of the General, in addition to rent. Baghdasaryan refused to pay and filed a written complaint against General Hakopian with a local judge. When Baghdasaryan received a second visit from Samvel demanding money on General Hakopian’s behalf, he followed up on his judicial complaint. Shortly thereafter, Baghdasaryan was arrested and fined $100 by the tax authority for working without a license that no other vendor was required to have. Baghdasaryan could only operate his business if he paid a monthly $100 “surcharge” to the tax authority. Baghdasaryan eventually received the license after paying a $500 bribe.

Minasyan v. Mukasey    9th. Circuit Court of Appeals Case No.  06-73192 - 01/20/09

9th.Circuit precedent case


Petition for review of a denial of asylum is granted where the year within which an alien seeking asylum must file an application begins the day after the alien arrives in the U.S., thus petitioner's application was timely.




As part of what our office does, it is sometimes necessary to file a law suit against the government to safeguard the interests of our clients or to receive an immigration answer on a case that has been pending for a long time. We have had many such cases. The following is a listing of our cases against the different Departments of the U.S. government on behalf of our clients:





9th. Circuit Court Oral Argument

This is an oral argument in on eof our 9th. Circuit Cases



Contact Us

Law Offices of Shawn S. Sedaghat


Los Angeles ( Sherman Oaks )

14011 Ventura Blvd.  Suite 400

Sherman Oaks , CA 91423


Telephone: +1 818 382-3333+1 818 382-3333

Facsimile:   +1 818 827-3466


Orange County ( Santa Ana /Irvine )

2102 Business Center Dr.

Irvine, CA 92612

Telephone:1+ 949-272-1199

Facsimile: 1+ 949 272-1198






Los Angeles (Sherman Oaks) Office

Orange County (Irvine) Office


Print | Sitemap
© Law Offices of Shawn S. Sedaghat The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any reason, person or entity whatsoever. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute an attorney-client relationship.