Simone Bertollini, Esq.
Superior Academic Qualifications
After graduating from law school in Rome, Italy, Simone moved to the United
States, where he graduated with a Juris Doctor degree from the University
of Kansas School of Law. There are only very few attorneys in the United
States with full academic qualifications in both a European and American
Moreover, Simone is one of the very few lawyers in the U.S. with firsthand
experience with the immigration process. Simone first came to the United
States on an F-1 student Visa to attend law school. After, Simone obtained
E-2 Treaty Investor status. Now, Simone is a proud lawful permanent resident.
Simone is fluent in English, Italian and Spanish.
Simone is admitted to the New York and the New Jersey Bars. He is also
admitted to the following Federal Courts:
- United States District Court, Southern District of New York
- United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
- United States District Court, Western District of New York
- United States District Court, District of New Jersey
- United States District Court, District of Connecticut
- United States District Court, Southern District of Texas
- United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
- United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
- United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
- United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Simone has been selected to the 2015 and 2016
New Jersey Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state
are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor.
Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding
lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree
of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selection
is made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide
survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and
peer reviews by practice area.
Simone has also been selected on “Top 40 New York Immigration Lawyers
under 40 years” by the American Society of Legal Advocates.
United States. v. Bjelovic et al., 14-60026-CR-COHN, Simone represented a naturalized U.S. citizen accused
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida of arranging
sham marriages for Serbian immigrants. Client was also accused of obtaining
his U.S. Passport by fraud, and faced up to 5 years in jail. After filing
a motion to dismiss and a motion to suppress evidence, the U.S. Government
decided to drop the charges, and the case was dismissed.
Larios v. Borgen, 2:14-cv-6736, Mr. Guzman was accused of immigration fraud, after USCIS
discovered that he had a child with another woman (with which he had previously
had two children) while he was married to his U.S. citizen wife. The Board
of Immigration Appeal upheld the USCIS decision and rejected the appeal.
Simone then filed an appeal with the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey. The U.S. Government decided to settle the lawsuit, and
to approve Guzman's case.
Matter of Jose Terrero, a client was denied his U.S. Citizenship application for the third time
after USCIS claimed that he had obtained his Green Card through fraud,
misrepresentation, or USCIS mistake. After filing a request for Naturalization
Hearing through Form N-336, USCIS decided to reverse its denial decision
and to finally grant U.S. Citizenship to Mr. Terrero.
Zarate v. Borgen, 2:15-cv-04311, Simone filed a Federal complaint challenging USCIS denial
of a client's application for adjustment of status due to a prior
finding of marriage fraud. Case was settled, and Ms. Zarate received her
Matter of Mabel Salinas D-, the client had been convicted in Federal Court for possessing a large
amount of fake U.S. notes. The Department of Homeland Security detained
her without a bond pending removal proceedings. Upon being retained, I
secured her release on a bond. After, I filed a motion to terminate proceedings
arguing that she was not removable under the immigration laws in effect
when she pleaded guilty, and that application of the current laws would
create an impermissible retroactive effect. The Court agreed and terminated