Serving the Southern California Since 1985
Former Wall Street Attorney Without the Price

Contact Us
3460 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 425
Los Angeles California 90010
Tel: (213) 252 - 9481

Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

New Website -

Our old website under the name has moved our new webpage at It is newer and more upto date than our old site! If you have any questions you can reach us in our Los Angeles Office at (213) 252 - 9481. -Mosqueda Law Office Staff

Friday, August 3, 2012

How Bankruptcy Affects Short Sale (August 2012)

Many of our clients ask us: How does bankruptcy affect the short sale on my property? The filing of a bankruptcy petition (Ch.7 or 13) results in an automatic stay of collection, foreclosure, and other proceedings by creditors against the debtor under bankruptcy protection.This article will discuss how the bankruptcy automatic stay affects short sale.

When is an automatic stay issued? An automatic stay is filed by a creditor and granted by the Bankruptcy Court, unless the court grants relief from the stay or case is closed or dismissed. The case is usually closed with a discharge order under Chapter 7 or completion of the confirmed plan of payment under Chapter 13.

In regards to a short sale, banks normally stop considering short sale of a property under foreclosure once an automatic stay is in place by the filing of a bankruptcy petition, for fear of violating the stay. However, bankruptcy in short sale is a special case.

Automatic stay should not affect bankruptcy: Because short sale of a property without equity is initiated by the debtor to avoid foreclosure, the automatic stay, which is for the debtor's protection, should not be used against the debtor. For banks, short sale is already a better option than foreclosure (that is why they even do them in the first place).

If banks refuse to proceed with the short sale during the process of the bankruptcy, the debtor who has stopped making monthly payments prolongs his stay in the property until the bankruptcy proceeding is terminated, or relief from automatic stay is obtained from the Bankruptcy court.

So, to block a short sale due to bankruptcy does not make much sense on their part. Banks also know that the summer months and early fall is a hot market for real estate and it is better to allow the short sale and move the property quickly than to deny the short sale and sit on the property longer without collecting payments. The process of short sale should proceed even under bankruptcy and automatic stay.

Written by,
Roman P. Mosqueda, Esq.

Attorney Mosqueda is a practicing Attorney and Real Estate Broker in the Los Angeles area. He has been practicing law in Southern California since 1985. For more information on his office visit his website at:

Summer Time Civil Litigation: 5 Ways to Avoid Civil Litigation

Civil Litigation in Los Angeles is on the arise again. Most businesses tend to dissolve in the summer months. Here are some tips on how to avoid this stressful and expensive scenario:

1. Have your contracts reviewed by an attorney: This is especially if your attorney did not draft the original business agreement. Make sure you are protected should the business need to be dissolved. A bad dissolution can cost upwards of $40,000 in legal fees for the business owner. This does not even include other fees such as: personal representative, court fees, mediation fees, and your time spent. This summer we are offering a free initial consultation for business owners who want to review their contracts.

2. Make sure that you and your partner sit down together and discuss all your options should your business need to be dissolved: Strangely, many business owners do not plan for the sale and/or dissolution. There are many tools that can be used to help facilitate this issue: buyout clauses, buy-sell agreements, and other forms to planning necessary.

For Example, If one partner were to die, then the surviving-spouse would inherit the 50% share of the business. This also includes all of the business responsibilities the deceased had. Like check writing for example. If the spouse was not on hand to write checks, the business would come to a stand still. Another problem, would be that the spouse rescind her power to check write, and give the partner free reign to write checks without her approval. Neither of these situation are appealing and could easily destroy or cripple a business. A simple buy sell agreement could be in place to generate funds to "buy out" the surveying spouse and ensure the business transitions smoothly.

3. Make sure that all agreements are in writing and backed by legal paperwork. And you know where it is. This seems obvious, but you would be surprised on how often there is a lack of paperwork to support a case. Make sure everything is documented, and you have a safe and secure copy of it.

4. Pre-Litigation Mediation and Arbitration: If dissolution seems inevitable, attempt to settle out of court through Mediation or Arbitration. Parties agree to settle their disputes by mediation or arbitration by talking through their problems in-front of an objective third party. Mediation and arbitration is less expensive and less time consuming than going to trial.

5. Independent Audit of Books and Records: In most partnerships, one partner controls the books while the other takes a passive role. This scenario often leads to a dangerous situation. To solve this issue, most companies would benefit from an independent audit of the company's finances to make sure that no partner is taking advantage of the other.

Ryan Mosqueda
Legal Assistant

Monday, February 27, 2012




Roman P. Mosqueda,
B.S., LL.B., LL.M., & S.J.D.

By Notice issued by the Los Angeles Field Office Director through on February 13, 2012, the I-751 Petition to Remove the Conditions on Residence of a Filipina, abandoned and divorced by a U.S.-citizen husband found at, was approved after interview.

This Author represents the Filipina client and personally appeared with her at her interview on February 13, 2012.

ISO Greg Watts found that she had entered into the marriage in good faith, but her marriage was terminated through divorce filed by her husband in Ohio, where she had lived with him for two years and three months.

From Meeting Via
Website To Marriage
In Columbus, Ohio:

The Filipina applicant for a waiver of a joint I-751 Petition, placed in removal proceedings on May 27, 2011, is a 28-year old native of Lanao del Norte, Philippines.

On or about October 2005, she found her prince charming, at His profile stated that he had been divorced with two minor children and a Christian devoted to God.

Communication through e-mails ensued. He sent her $100.00 monthly through Western Union to defray chat bills because she was not working at that time.

On April 12, 2006, he flew to Manila and then to Dipolog City, where he was met by her and her sister. He was introduced to her parents and her family. He then proposed marriage. She accepted.

Two days later, he flew back to Ohio and started filing for a fiancée visa for her. She was subsequently issued a K-1 visa. They got married on March 17, 2007, in Columbus, Ohio; her two stepdaughters were her flower girls.

In June 2007, they bought a house and a car, and lived in Urbana, Ohio. She wanted a child of her own, only to be told by him that he had undergone vasectomy.

Marriage On The Rocks
And Abandonment In
The Philippines:

During the marriage, she was not working, taking care of him and her two young stepdaughters. He did not give her any money for her personal needs. Her sister in Michigan sent her money. She bought and sold clothes online.

On April 13, 2009, they visited with her parents in the Philippines and stayed there for two weeks. In May 2009, they filed the Joint Form I-751 Petition.

But on June 27, 2009, he convinced her to go with him back to the Philippines. He unceremoniously abandoned her at the Pearl Manila Hotel. He flew back to Ohio alone, with her green card and passport.

She obtained travel permit from the U.S. Embassy to travel to the United States. She e-mailed him for transportation money, but he said that he did not want her back.

She borrowed money from a cousin in California, and arrived in Los Angeles on August 18, 2009. She called him from Los Angeles, but he said that he is filing for divorce. He filed for dissolution of marriage, which was finalized on November 5, 2009, with a Judgment Entry and Decree of Divorce in Ohio.

Mixed marriages of spouses with different culture and background add more challenges to the success of a marital union in the United States.

(The Author, Roman P. Mosqueda, has published a book on marriage and its dissolution and several articles on immigration reliefs to unsuccessful marriages. He is a long-time member of AILA. Send e-mails to or call (213) 252-9481 for free consultation appointment, or visit www.mosquedalaw and to read his other articles.)

Friday, May 20, 2011

Filipino Immigration Attorney

Filipino Immigration Attorney
Immigration and Removal Proceedings
Immigration law is constantly changing. There are always new laws, new regulations, and new ways opening up for immigrants to become green card holders and citizens of the United States.

Here at the Law Offices of Roman P. Mosqueda, we prepare and perform all categories of Immigration Law from Green Cards to Removal Hearings, to Appeals.

To learn what steps you need to take, the first thing you should do is seek legal advice. Our office offers FREE Confidential Consultations where you can to talk to an attorney for 30 minutes to an hour regarding your situation. This is the perfect opportunity to have all your questions answered by an attorney and learn what steps you need to take to become a green card holder or citizen of the United States.

There is absolutely no charge and the consult is completely confidential. During consultation you will be able to explain your situation to us, and we will go over the various options open to you and recommend the best solution for your situation.

To set up an appointment, call us at (213) 252 - 9481.

The Law Offices of Roman P. Mosqueda has been handling Immigration cases and hearings for the last 25 years. Over the years, Attorney Mosqueda has represented thousands of clients with their Immigration needs and successfully represented them in Immigration court, Department of Homeland Security (CIS & ICE), Board of Immigration Appeals, and Federal Court of Appeals.

We have many: Filipino, Spanish, Thai, European, Cambodian, Korean, and Asian clients. We speak: English, Spanish, Filipino, and Cambodian.

We Handle All Immigration Cases including:
- Deportation / Removal Proceedings Hearings
- Immigration Forms (I-130, I-485, I-765, & More: {Full List of Forms})
- Student Visas
- Working Visas
- Fiancé Visas
- Investors Visas
- Immigration Appeals
- Criminal Cases with Immigration Consequences.

Worried about the cost?
We aim to make legal service affordable with:
* Low down payments
* Custom payment plans
* And we accept credit cards!

Have a quick question or would like to speak to the Attorney First? - No problem! Give us a call and we will be more than happy to answer your questions.

Know a family member or friend that would benefit from a FREE Immigration consultation? Feel free to bring them along to sit in and ask questions or sign them up for their very own FREE consultation.

For A Free Confidential
Call: (213) 252 - 9481

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Child Status protection Act (CSPA) for Derivative Children

Child Status Protection
Act (CSPA) for Derivative

Roman P. Mosqueda
B.S., LL.B., LL.M., & S.J.D.

Signed into law on August 6, 2002, the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), PL 107-208, 116 Stat. 927, INA § 201 (8), address the problem of minor children who age out (turn 21 years of age) due to long processing delays and large backlogs.

It permits certain beneficiaries in family -based, employment-based and
diversity-based petitions, as well as in some humanitarians programs (refugees, asylees, Violence Against Woman Act) to retain classifications as a “child” despite reaching the age of 21.

In the context of an employments-based petition, the CSPA allows the time the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, was pending to be subtracted from beneficiary’s biological age at the time of immigrant visa availability on the approval date thereof, whichever is later. INA § 203 (h) (3).

Formula For Determining
CSPA Age of Derivative Children :

Section 3 of the CSPA provides the formula for determining the CSPA age of direct and derivative children who are beneficiaries of family and employment-based petitions, as fallows:

(1) Determine the age of the child at the time an immigrant visa number becomes available (priority date of labor certification application (LCA) or of Form I-140 exempted from LCA becomes current), or the Form I-140 approval date, whichever is later;
(2) Subtract from this biological age the number of days that the Form I-140 Immigrant Visa Petition was pending (from receipt date to approval date) to get the CSPA age; and
(3) The child must “seek to acquire” lawful permanent resident (LPR) status (adjustment or immigrant visa) within one year of the approval of the I-140 petition or the availability of the immigrant visa, whichever is later.

For example, if the Form I-140 was filed in 2004, when the derivative child of the beneficiary was 19 years of age, and the priority date of the LCA of Form I-140 became available at that time (2004), but the Form I-140 petition was pending for 4 years, the biological age of the child after 4 years is 23 years, but his or her CSPA age is still 19 years. So, he or she has not aged-out.

In effect the CSPA locks in the age of a child at an earlier date that his or her age at the time of adjudication of adjustment of status (Form I-485) in the United States or of the immigrant visa application (Form DS-230 Part I).

Meaning of “Seeks To
Acquire” LPR Status:

The third prong of the formula for the application of the CSPA to derivative children stated above is that the child must “seek to acquire” lawful permanent resident (LPR) status within one year of the approval of the petition or the availability of the immigrant visa, whichever is later, in order to obtain the benefits of the CSPA.

The date of immigrant availability is defined by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) as the first day of the first month a visa in the appropriate category was listed as available in the Department of State Visa Bulletin.

As a statute of limitations, this one-year period within which to apply for LPR Status, as a filing deadline, has been interpreted by the Department of State as follows:

(1.) The date the derivative child (not his or hers parent) submits the Completed Application For Immigrant Visa And Alien Registration (Form DS-230, Part I) and its reaching in the immigrant visa system;
(2.) As for a “following to join” derivative child whose LPR parent is in the United States, the date the child seeks to acquire LPR status for the one year filing deadline for the immigrant visa application is the date the parent files Form I-824, Application for Action On An Approved Application Or Petition, on the Child’s behalf (which can be filed with the parents I-485), or takes a “concrete step “forwards seeking LPR Status. DOS Cable, 03-state 15049 (1/17/03) 4422,23.

For example, a Form I-140 petition was filed in 2000 by a parent’s employer when the derivative child was 20 years of age. The Form I-140 petition was approved in 2002, and the immigrant visa number was current on approval.

The derivative child waited until 2004:

(1) To apply for adjustment of status (Form I-485) in the United Sates; or
(2) To submit the completed From DS-230 Part I for consular processing; or
(3) To take “concrete steps” towards seeking LPR status; or
(4) The parent filed Form I-824 with USCIS only in 2004.

In the four scenarios, the derivative child, although having a CSPA age of 20, is still ineligible to obtain LPR status because he or she or his her parent failed to file within one year of the I-140 Petition Approval or the availability of the immigrant visa, both 2002. The filing in 2004 was one year too late.

(The Author, Roma P. Mosqueda, has been practicing immigration law, among other areas of law, for over 20 years. He is a member of AILA and of the California Public Defenders Association. He is also a member of the Million Dollar Advocated Forum.
For comments on this article, e-mail to, or call (213) 252-9481 for free consultation appointments, or visit his website at

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Criminal Cases with Immigration Consequences Los Angeles

If you are an immigrant charged with a crime in los angeles, be aware of the immigration consequences that you could be facing.

In many cases, crimes are good ground for the Department of Homeland Security to revoke your Green Card, Visa, and other forms of temporary residence.

In this situation, hiring a criminal defense attorney is not enough. Most criminal law lawyers know very little about immigration law and the potential pitfalls.

Atty Roman P. Mosqueda has been practicing both Criminal and Immigration Law for over 25 years. The benefits of practicing both fields of law are as follows.

1. You save Money: Atty Mosqueda offers discounts for bundling cases.
2. You get more Experience: You get two expert attorneys for the price of one
3. You get a Dedicated One Stop Lawyer: No need to explain your case to 2 different lawyers.
4. You get better Results: Atty. Mosqueda is able to handle your special situation with more skill than any single practice attorney.

We also can:

1. Lower your bail premium
2. Reduce charges against you. (Felony -> Misdemeanor -> Thrown out case)
3. Expert Services
4. The comfort of speaking with an Attorney who was also a First Generation Immigrant himself.

Call (213) 252-9481 to set up a FREE CONSULTATION with Attorney Roman P. Mosqueda today.


Roman P. Mosqueda

Roman P. Mosqueda
Graduated from Michigan Law School with both an LLM and SJD. For more information check out