625 E. Twiggs Street, Ste 109

Tampa, FL 33602

© 2020 Stephen Shaiken, Esq. All rights reserved.

Website design by Blue Heron Support

ABOUT STEPHEN SHAIKEN

 Admitted to practice in Florida, New York, California, and federal courts, including U.S. Supreme Court 

Stephen Shaiken, Esq.

Se habla español

Conversational Thai spoken

I have been practicing immigration and criminal law for over thirty years. I have tried to verdict approximately fifty criminal cases, and have argued dozens of criminal appeals in state and federal appellate courts, as well as filing habeas corpus and coram nobis writs in state and federal courts. On the immigration side, I have been attorney of record in thousands of immigration court hearings, covering every type of removal case. I have represented hundreds of clients before the Board of Immigration Appeals and the federal circuit courts. I have appeared before all federal immigration agencies. My experience includes removal defense, asylum, naturalization, family law, and, most prominently, consular processing, expertise in the immigration consequences of criminal conviction and how to avoid or mitigate them.

For twenty five years, I delivered an annual lecture on the immigration consequences of criminal convictions, which was approved for Continuing Education credit. I’ve been qualified as an expert on the subject.

Fun Fact

When I’m not defending clients, my passion is writing fiction, though sometimes it’s hard to come up with stories more interesting that my cases! I’ve written several short stories and a novel. If you are interested, here are some links to my writing work:

 

SIGNIFICANT VICTORIES

establishing that relief under CAT can be based on “turning a blind eye", and that the Convention Against Torture applies where a government refuses to act in the face of torture

failure to prove a misstatement to the FBI constituted perjury for denial of naturalization

failure to prove that a particular offense was a per se removable drug offenses

persuaded Board of Immigration appeals to reverse a removal order where the immigration judge decided there was no basis for asylum without allowing the alien to file an application

failure to prove that possession of a substantial amount of drugs and cash established trafficking, because the state statute defining trafficking was not the same as the federal definition

reversed consular denial of visa by proving that the foreign conviction did not correspond to the ground of inadmissibility alleged by the State Department

failure to prove an alien was engaged in “managing prostitution”, which meant the difference between no consequences and removal

reversed consular determination that visa applicant had accumulated unauthorized presence in America and had to wait outside the U.S. for years or obtain a waiver