CASE: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization)

APPLICANT: Indian

LOCATION: Maryville, TN

Our client contacted us in July 2020 to seek legal representation for his naturalization. He came to the United States from India and obtained his green card in October 2017 through marriage. 

His N-400 was filed on July 21, 2020. Prior to citizenship interview, our office prepared him on the phone. On January 21, 2021, our client appeared at the Nashville, TN USCIS office for his naturalization interview. Our client answered all questions correctly and passed. On February 21, 2021, his application was approved. His oath taking is scheduled in which he will become a naturalized U.S. Citizen.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751

APPLICANT: Indian

LOCATION: Maryville, TN

Our client contacted our office in July of 2019 regarding his I-751 application.

He is from India and he married a U.S. citizen in December 2016. Through his marriage, he obtained a 2-year conditional green card in October of 2017 through our firm.  His conditional residency terminated in October 2019.

To comply with immigration requirements, our client and his wife had to file an I-751 Joint Petition to Remove Conditions. He retained our office on July 9, 2019, and our office prepared an I-751 application for our client.

On July 26, 2019, our office filed an I-751 application to the USCIS with several supporting documents to demonstrate the bona fideness of their marriage.

After the application was filed, the fingerprint notice was issued two weeks later. There was no RFE issuance or interview request for our client’s I-751 application. As a result, on May 27, 2020, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application and our client received his 10-year green card.

{ 0 comments }

Case: I-130/I-485
Applicant/Beneficiary – British
Location: Johnson City, TN

Our client entered the United States in May 2017 from the United Kingdom under the visa waiver program. As a Visa Waiver Entrant, he was only authorized to remain in the United States for 90 days.  In January 2018, our client and his U.S. citizen girlfriend got married in the United States.

In May 2018, they contacted our office and consulted with us regarding the adjustment of status. After the consultation, they retained our office on May 9, 2018.  One main issue in his green card application through marriage was the fact that he came to the United States under the visa waiver program.   As our office wrote in our previous success story with a similar issue,  under the visa waiver program, citizens of certain countries can enter the U.S. for 90 days without a visa with the condition that the visitor waives his or her right to contest removal (other than on the basis of asylum).  The “no-contest” provision of the Visa Waiver Program is fundamental; if someone could enter under the VWP and then contest removability, it would defeat the whole purpose of the Program which is to make it easy for certain nationals to come to the United States to visit and then leave without all the red-tape involved in visa issuance.

Since our client resided in Johnson City, TN, his application had a better chance compared to states under the 9th Circuit (see Momeni v. Chertoff).  However, it was quite foreseeable that the USCIS field office will exercise its discretion to deny his application because of his visa waiver entry.  

Nevertheless, our office filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on August 1, 2018.  Our office requested the CIS to exercise favorable discretion in granting adjustment of status. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, the fingerprint appointment, and the work permit all came on time. There was no Request for Evidence.  Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared via conference call. On May 15, 2019, our client was interviewed at the Nashville, Tennessee USCIS Field Office.  Despite the visa waiver issue, the USCIS officer approved his green card application on the same day of the interview.  Now, our client becomes a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

NATIONALITY: Indian                                                                                                        

LOCATION: Tennessee

Our client is from India who last entered the U.S. on an H-1B visa. In December 2016, our client married his U.S. citizen wife.  He retained our office in January 2017 for his green card application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on February 14, 2017.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients via conference calls. On October 14, 2017, our client was interviewed at the Memphis, TN USCIS Field office. Eventually, on October 20, 2017, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751

APPLICANT: Filipina

LOCATION: Tennessee

Our client contacted our office in May of 2014 regarding her I-751 application.

She is from the Philippines and she married a U.S. citizen in July 2007. Through her marriage, she obtained a 2-year conditional green card in March of 2008.  Her conditional residency terminated in March 2010.

To comply with immigration requirements, our client and her husband should have filed an I-751 Joint Petition to Remove Conditions before March 2010. However, due to financial and health related reasons for our clients, they could not file the I-751 application on time.

However, the USCIS still allows the I-751 applicant to file his or her I-751 application as long as there is a good cause for the late filing. She was placed in removal proceedings because she did not remove conditions on her residency.

In May 2014, the Memphis Immigration Court terminated her removal proceedings. She then retained our office for the I-751 filing. Once retained, our office prepared an I-751 application for our client with bona fide marriage evidence and a letter to explain their late filing.

On May 11, 2015, our office filed an I-751 application to the USCIS with affidavits of applicant and her husband to explain their late filing and other joint documents to demonstrate the bona fideness of their marriage.

On December 10, 2015, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) and asked our clients to submit more evidence regarding the bona fide nature of their marriage. We filed an extensive Response to RFE to the USCIS with more bona fide marital documents on March 2, 2016. The USCIS scheduled an I-751 interview for our client. Prior to the interview, our office thoroughly prepared our clients via conference calls and informed them of potential issues at the interview.

On July 19, 2016, our client was interviewed for her I-751 application at the USCIS Memphis, TN Field Office.  The USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application after the interview. She now has her 10-year green card.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT in Immigration Court

CLIENT: Cameroonian

LOCATION: Memphis Immigration Court

Our Cameroonian client came to the United States in December 1999 on an F-1 student visa. In July 2001, he filed an asylum application to the USCIS, was interviewed by the USCIS, and later his case was referred to the Immigration Court.  Thereafter, a Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceedings. After he got the Notice to Appear, he appeared at his initial master calendar hearing at the Memphis Immigration Court with his previous attorney.

His removal proceedings were continued, but he could not appear at his individual hearing in April 2003 due to hospitalization.  Thus, the Court found him removable and ordered him removed in absentia.

Later, in April 2011, he filed Motion to Reopen with assistance of his previous immigration counsel.  However, this Motion to Reopen was denied by the Court in July 2011.

Thereafter, he contacted our office to determine whether he can file a Motion to Reopen again.  After consultation, we explained to him that the only way the Court can reopen his case is based on changed country conditions in Cameroon.  It is because our client’s second Motion to Reopen can be considered untimely filed and numerically barred.

Our client decided to retain our office on November 22, 2011 for a Motion to Reopen based on changed country conditions.

Under immigration law, if an applicant seeks to make an asylum claim and a final order of removal has been entered and the ninety-day filing deadline for motions to reopen has passed, the BIA and the majority of Circuit Courts have found that the applicant may only file the asylum application through a motion to reopen and only under the “changed country conditions” provision of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i).  Thus, our office prepared the Motion to Reopen based on the changed country conditions in Cameroon.

On March 6, 2012, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Memphis Immigration Court.

W included a detailed affidavit regarding his involvement in a political activist group in Cameroon, and several affidavits from his fellow members who confirmed his involvement with the organization.  We claimed that the number of arrests and detentions of his political group member had recently escalated since his original removal hearing in 2003 resulting in changed country conditions.  We also attached a letter from a human rights officer in which he stated that he knew our client’s political involvement in Cameroon. Moreover, other supporting documents such as newspaper articles and a country report of Cameroon were submitted (24 exhibits).  On March 29, 2012, the DHS filed a Response in Opposition to our Motion.  Nevertheless, on May 2, 2012, the Memphis Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case.

Once his case was  reopened, he retained our office again. Our attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu appeared at his master calendar hearing via telephonic appearance and his individual hearing was scheduled on September 29, 2014 at the Memphis Immigration Court.

Our client was persecuted and harmed in Cameroon based on his political opinion and movement.  Our client was scared to go back home to Cameroon, fearing that he will be persecuted based on his political opinion. Moreover, our client’s late father and his uncle were mistreated and harmed in Cameroon due to their political opinion as well.

We helped him file his asylum application and represented him in immigration court hearings. We also asked him to provide supporting documents corroborating his claim, some of which were a letter from his family, colleagues and friends in Cameroon. Our firm also did some research on articles related to his claim, and the type of persecution he will experience in Cameroon if sent back.

Our client’s individual hearing was scheduled on September 29, 2014 at the Memphis Immigration Court. Attorney Sung Hee Yu from our firm prepared him extensively. He also represented our client at his Individual Hearing at the Memphis Immigration Court.

Prior to the hearing, the Immigration Judge held a pre-trial conference with Attorney Yu and the DHS counsel. During the pre-trial conference, all of the possible issues were examined. At the conclusion of the conference, withholding of removal was granted.

After the hearing, the Immigration Judge granted Withholding of Removal for our client based on his persecution in Cameroon. His removal will be withheld and our client can get his Employment Authorization Document and will not be deported.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: PERM Labor Certification

 EMPLOYER: Hospital

 BENEFICIARY: Thai Hospitalist

 LOCATION: Tennessee

Our client is a hospitalist (physician) from Thailand, who is currently working at a hospital which was willing to petition him for a second-preference petition (I-140).  Our client has an M.D. degree and is a licensed physician in the state of Tennessee. He has maintained his status as an H-1B visa holder in the United States.  After talking to our client, our firm concluded that his potential employer can petition him as a Hospitalist. Based on our client’s educational, professional and working background, our office determined that he is clearly eligible for EB-2 classification for his I-140 petition.

Prior to filing PERM, our firm prepared the prevailing wage request, job order, advertisements, internal job posting, recruitment report, and all other steps which are important pre-PERM filing. Take note that the PERM application could be filed at least 60 days from the job posting date or 30 days from the last ad. Within a week from our retention, the prevailing wage request was filed.  After we obtained the foreign degree evaluation report, our office filed the job order on September 6, 2013.  On January 9, 2014, we promptly filed PERM.  Eventually, on June 23, 2014, the PERM Labor Certification was approved – an EB2 position for the Thai Hospitalist beneficiary. Now our client can file the I-140 Petition and I-485 green card application simultaneously since his priority date is current.

{ 0 comments }

Case: I-130/I-485
Applicant/Beneficiary – German
Location: Memphis, TN

Our client entered the United States in November 2010 from Germany under the visa waiver program. He came here to visit his U.S. citizen girlfriend (now his wife). As a Visa Waiver Entrant, he was only authorized to remain in the United States only for 90 days.

Later, in April 2011, our client and his U.S. citizen girlfriend married in the United States. His wife contacted our office, and they retained our office on July 8, 2011.  One main issue in his green card application through marriage was the fact that he came to the United States under the visa waiver program.   As our office wrote in our previous success story with a similar issue,  under the visa waiver program, citizens of certain countries can enter the U.S. for 90 days without a visa with the condition that the visitor waives his or her right to contest removal (other than on the basis of asylum).  The “no-contest” provision of the Visa Waiver Program is fundamental; if someone could enter under the VWP and then contest removability, it would defeat the whole purpose of the Program which is to make it easy for certain nationals to come to the United States to visit and then leave without all the red-tape involved in visa issuance.

Since our client resided in Memphis, Tennessee, his application had a better chance compared to states under the 9th Circuit (see Momeni v. Chertoff).  However, it was quite foreseeable that the USCIS field office will exercise its discretion to deny his application because of his visa waiver entry.

Nevertheless, our office filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on November 8, 2012.  Our office requested the CIS to exercise favorable discretion in granting adjustment of status. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, the fingerprint appointment, and the work permit all came on time. There was no Request for Evidence.  Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients. On February 19, 2013, our client was interviewed at the Memphis, Tennessee USCIS Field Office.  Despite the visa waiver issue, the USCIS officer approved his green card application on the same day.  Now, our client is a green card holder.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

For other marriage-based green card success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

  <a href=”https://plus.google.com/107743308565341841259?rel=author”>Google</a>

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Cameroonian
LOCATION: Memphis, TN

Our client came to the United States from Cameroon without inspection in July 2001. Within a year of his entry, he filed an I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal in March 2002 to the USCIS.  He was interviewed in April 2002, and his application was subsequently referred to the Memphis Immigration Court in May 2002.  His removal proceedings were continued, but he could not appear at his individual hearing in April 2003 due to being hospitalized. Thus, the Court found him removable and ordered him removed in absentia.

Later, in April 2011, he filed a Motion to Reopen with the assistance of his previous immigration counsel.  However, this Motion to Reopen was denied by the Court in July 2011.  Thereafter, he contacted our office to determine whether he can file a Motion to Reopen again. We explained to him that the only way the Court can reopen his case is based on changed country conditions in Cameroon. Otherwise, our client’s second Motion to Reopen will be considered untimely filed and numerically barred. Our client decided to retain our office on November 22, 2011 for a Motion to Reopen based on changes in country conditions under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i).

We prepared the brief and helped our client with the supporting documents and on March 6, 2012, our office filed a fifteen-page Motion to Reopen with the Memphis Immigration Court, together with a total of 24 exhibits. We included a detailed affidavit regarding his involvement in a political activist group in Cameroon, and several affidavits from his fellow members who confirmed his involvement with the organization.  We claimed that the number of arrests and detentions of his political group have recently escalated since his original removal hearing in 2003 resulting in changed country conditions.  We also attached a letter from a human rights officer in which he stated that he knew about our client’s political involvement in Cameroon. Other supporting documents such as newspaper articles and a recent country report from Cameroon were submitted (24 exhibits).  On March 29, 2012, the DHS filed a Response in Opposition to our Motion.  Nevertheless, on May 2, 2012, the Memphis Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case.  Our client now does not have a final order of removal and will proceed to seek asylum relief with the Immigration Court.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

For other Motion to Reopen success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }