CASE: H-1B Visa Petition

PETITIONER: Pharmacy in California

BENEFICIARY: British Pharmacist Intern in the United Kingdom

Our client is a pharmacy located in California.  They contacted our office in early March of this year to seek legal assistance for a possible H-1B petition for a prospective foreign employees.

The beneficiary obtained his Bachelor’s degree in Pharmacy in the United Kingdom. Also, the beneficiary is a licensed pharmacist in the U.K. and she is currently residing in the U.K. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is a Pharmacist Intern which we argued qualifies as a specialty occupation.

Upon retention, our office prepared and eventually filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on March 31, 2014 via regular processing. This H-1B petition was selected after the lottery.

However, the USCIS mailed a Request for Evidence to the Petitioner-Employer and requested Petitioner to submit additional evidence for the qualifications of Beneficiary for the proffered position. The USCIS requested the Petitioner to submit evidence regarding his lack of license – in particular, further proof that she could not get a license in California due to what we claimed on the initial application as a lack of social security / status.

The USCIS was skeptical and argued that Beneficiary is not qualified for Pharmacist Intern position because she did not have a California Pharmacy license yet. We thus had the beneficiary submit further documents to the California State Board, including fees, in order to receive the deficiency letter (print-outs regarding California’s requirements were initially submitted showing that a social security is needed, but these days, CIS wants an actual deficiency letter… they want you to actually pay and submit an actual application even though your requirements are missing, so that the deficiency letter can serve as your evidence in the H-1B petition) on Beneficiary’s license application from the California State Board of Pharmacy to explain why she could not get her license (she could not get a license because she does not have a social security number).

In the response brief, our office argued that the beneficiary did apply for the California License but she does not have a license yet due to a deficiency in her social security number. We also argued in light of the Donald Neufeld March 21, 2008 Memorandum. According to the memo and adjudicator’s Field Manual Section 31.3(d), “adjudicators are instructed to approve the petition for a one-year validity period, provided that the sole reason why the alien beneficiary does not possess such license is that the appropriate licensing authority will not grant such license to an alien absent evidence that the alien has been granted H-1B status.” We argued that beneficiary’s status would allow her to obtain a social security number which will lead her to get her license. Moreover, our office submitted the documents to demonstrate Petitioner’s business viability (tax return and quarterly wage report) and other documents pertaining to an in-house project was also submitted.

Our office filed a detailed Response to RFE brief with exhibits to the USCIS California Service Center on September 3, 2014.  Eventually, our client’s H-1B application was approved on September 18, 2014. Now, the beneficiary can apply for an H-1B visa at the U.S. Embassy in London, U.K, and upon the issuance of visa, she can work for the Petitioner from October 1, 2014 for one year.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-140 (EB-3 Category) / Schedule A / Old Priority Date Retention
EMPLOYER: Nursing / Rehabilitation Center
BENEFICIARY: Filipino
LOCATION: Houston, TX

Our client’s beneficiary is a registered nurse from the Philippines licensed in the state of Texas, New Mexico and New York. He came to the United States in June 2014, and his prospective employer was willing to petition him for a third-preference employment immigrant visa petition (I-140). Our client also has an approved EB-3 I-140 petition with a priority date of August 2008.

Since he is a registered nurse, he is eligible for “Schedule A” classification. The Department of Labor (DOL) maintains a schedule of occupations in its regulations, Schedule A included, for which the individual permanent labor certification procedure is not required. The schedule of pre-certified occupations is referred to as Schedule A, and is included in DOL regulations at 20 CFR 656.10. Based on an occupation’s inclusion on Schedule A, an employer may file an immigrant visa petition (I-140) directly with the (USCIS) without first going to the DOL for a labor certification. Usually, prior to filing I-140 petitions (EB-2 or EB-3 category), the employer must file a Labor Certification to the Department of Labor. However, for Schedule A cases, the employer does not have to go through the labor certification process. The position of Professional Nurses is included in Schedule A.

Also, under 8 CFR 204.5(e):

“Retention of section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) priority date. A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date. A petition revoked under sections 204(e) or 205 of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition. A priority date is not transferable to another alien.”

As mentioned above, our client’s approved I-140 petition was not denied, was actually approved, and was never revoked at any point. Thus, by virtue of 8 CFR 204.5(e), this succeeding I-140 Petition by our client’s prospective employer for our client is entitled to the previous priority date.

Our client has a nursing degree and has more than 6 years related experience. Our firm told him that his potential employer can petition him as a Registered Nurse under the schedule A category. Our office was retained on July 9, 2014 and started on his Prevailing Wage Request.

We filed the I-140 application on August 28, 2014 via premium processing. We included the job offer letter, the notice of filing, her previous I-140 approval notice, and other necessary supporting documents.  Eventually, on September 4, 2014, the I-140 was approved and it retained our client’s old priority date.  Now, our client can file an I-485 adjustment of status application based on the approved I-140 petition since his priority date is current.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: H-1B Extension
PETITIONER:  Engineering Company
BENEFICIARY: Taiwanese Radio Frequency / Electrical Engineer

Our client is an engineering company that specializes in RFID (Radio Frequency Identification Technology) solutions.  Our client’s office is located near Columbus, Ohio.  They contacted our office in mid-June to seek legal assistance from our office for their foreign employee’s H-1B Extension.  The beneficiary obtained his Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering in Taiwan and completed his Master’s program in the United States. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is a radio frequency / electrical engineer which we argued qualifies as a specialty occupation.  He has been working for the Petitioner for the last three years on a valid H-1B visa.

After retention, our office filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on July 8, 2014 via regular processing. Eventually, without any RFE, our client’s H-1B extension was approved on August 28, 2014. Now the Beneficiary can continue for the Petitioner on an H-1B status until September 28, 2017.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-485 based on Approved I-140 (EB-2)

APPLICANT: Indian

 LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client is a Senior Oracle Applications Developer from India, who is currently working at a large chemical company who was willing to petition him for a second-preference petition (I-140).  He has maintained his status as an H-1B visa holder in the United States.  He had an approved I-140 petition which was filed by his current employer and this I-140 petition’s priority date was November 19, 2008.

In February 2012, his priority date became current. He contacted our office and retained us for his and his wife’s I-485 adjustment of status applications. Our office filed I-485 adjustment of status applications for our client on February 17, 2012. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices and fingerprint appointment came on time. However, the EB-2 for Indian Nationals retrogressed.

Eventually, in August 2014, his priority date became current. On August 25, 2014, the USCIS Nebraska Service Center approved our client and his wife’s adjustment of status applications. They are now green card holders.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: H-1B Change of Employer

PETITIONER: Architectural Design Company

BENEFICIARY: Turkish Architect

LOCATION: New York, NY

Our client is an architectural design firm headquartered in New York City. They contacted our office in May 2014 to seek assistance from our office for their foreign employee. The beneficiary is from Turkey and he obtained his Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in architecture. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is an architect which we argued qualifies as a specialty occupation

The foreign beneficiary in this case already had his H-1B from his previous employer which was in a similar industry.  His H-1B status was not yet expired, and he wanted to extend his H-1B status on a change of employer basis.

After retention, our office promptly filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on May 20, 2014 via regular processing.  Since this petition was based on a change of employer, this petition was exempt from the annual cap of the H-1B.  Thus, we could file it even after the quotas are gone.  There were no Requests for Evidence during the processing of the H-1B.  Eventually, our client’s H-1B Petition was approved on August 25, 2014.  Now the Beneficiary can work for his Petitioner-Employer as an H-1B visa holder and he can work there for the next three years.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: H-1B Visa Petition

PETITIONER: IT Consulting Company in New Jersey

BENEFICIARY: Indian Systems Analyst in Japan

Our client is an IT Consulting Company located in New Jersey.  They contacted our office in the middle of February this year to seek legal assistance for possible H-1B petitions for prospective foreign employees.

The beneficiary obtained his Bachelor’s degree in Electronic Engineering in India. The beneficiary is currently working in Japan. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is a Systems Analyst which we argued qualifies as a specialty occupation.

Upon retention, our office prepared and eventually filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on March 31, 2014 via regular processing. This H-1B petition was selected after the lottery.

However, the USCIS mailed a Request for Evidence to the Petitioner-Employer and requested Petitioner to submit additional evidence to establish that the proffered position to the beneficiary qualified as a “Specialty Occupation” on June 30, 2014, plus additional questions about the “in-house” nature of the employment.

We gathered supporting documents from both the Petitioner and Beneficiary and did research on the industry, focusing on similarly sized businesses, to demonstrate that a bachelor’s degree is commonly required for this position. We also provided in-house employment proof.

In the response brief, our office argued that the degree requirement is common to this industry in parallel positions among similar organizations.  We provided evidence that the position of Systems Analyst or Computer Systems Analyst is a common position required by similarly sized IT consulting company.  Also, we provided evidence that Petitioner’s competitors normally require degrees in a specific specialty for closely related positions like that of Systems Analyst.  Moreover, our office asserted that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. Other documents pertaining to an in-house project was also submitted.

Our office filed a detailed Response to RFE brief with many exhibits to the USCIS Vermont Service Center on August 6, 2014.  Eventually, our client’s H-1B application was approved on August 25, 2014. Now, the beneficiary can apply for an H-1B visa at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, Japan, and upon the issuance of visa, he can work for the Petitioner from October 1, 2014 for three years.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: J-1 Waiver (No Objection Statement)
NATIONALITY: Philippines
LOCATION: New Mexico

Our client came from the Philippines on a J-1 in July 2011 to work as a teacher. According to her DS-2019, she was subject to the two-year foreign residency requirement.

In June 2013, she got married to her U.S. citizen husband and later on consulted with our firm for her J-1 visa waiver prior to applying for adjustment of status. If someone is subject to the two-year foreign residency requirement, he or she cannot get a green card in the United States until he or she fulfills the requirement or obtains a waiver.

Upon retention, our office promptly prepared a waiver request through a No Objection Statement (NOS) from the Philippine Embassy in the United States and eventually the EVP in the Philippines.

On March 19, 2014, the J-1 Waiver Application (Form DS-3035) was filed to the Department of State.  We also sent a request to the New Mexico State Government to get authentication for the necessary documents.  Later, these authenticated documents and No Objection Application (for the Philippines Government) were sent to the Philippines Consulate General in Los Angeles for further authentication.  On May 1, 2014, our office sent our client’s materials to the Waiver Review Committee in Manila, Philippines.  Then, the Waiver Review Committee forwarded the materials and favorable recommendation to the Philippine Embassy in D.C. who eventually issued a No Objection Statement.

On July 21, 2014, the Waiver Review Division issued a favorable recommendation based on the No Objection statement.  Eventually, on August 19, 2014, the USCIS issued an I-612 approval notice for the waiver. Now, our client can file for her adjustment status application along with her U.S. Citizen husband’s I-130 petition for her.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-485 (National Interest Waiver)

CLIENT: Taiwanese

LOCATION: Columbus, OH

Our client contacted us about the possibility of doing a National Interest Waiver about a year ago. He is a post-doctorate researcher and scientist in the field of Bionanotechnology and polymer science, and is currently working as a post-doctorate researcher in an academic institution in Columbus, Ohio.

His significant contributions have placed him at the pinnacle of the field of bionanotechnology, biomedical engineering, polymer processing, thermo-fluid science, numerical simulation, and micro/nano technology. He is a leading scientist with an excellent reputation in the development of cell electroporation in micro/nanofluidic systems. He used the nanochannel to carry out electroporation. Our client also does research on DNA stretching dynamics in a modified molecular combining process.

Upon review of his credentials and qualifications, our office determined that he may be qualified for the National Interest Waiver (NIW) category. Being qualified for NIW is beneficial since you would not need an employer nor family member to petition you for green card purposes. You’d be eligible for a self-petition and unless you are from China or India, in which case you’d still have to wait for priority dates to be current, you would be eligible to apply for adjustment of status (green card) immediately without any lag in priority dates.

As a primer, NIW applicants must have a master’s or higher degree. The landmark immigration case that discusses the standards for NIWs is Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Comm.1998). This case held that the qualifying applicant must show the following elements in his or her I-140 NIW petition: First, it must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Next, it must be shown that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U. S. worker having the same minimum qualifications.

Our office prepared a 23-page brief for our client’s NIW filing. Our client also obtained 9 letters of recommendation from his colleagues and internationally-recognized scientists. Our office also included his publication records, presentation records, and conference materials in the NIW application. We demonstrated the intrinsic merit of our client’s research in the United States, the national scope of his research, and asserted that our client would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. His NIW application contained 36 exhibits (Exhibit A to OO).

Our office filed his I-140(NIW) petition to the USCIS Nebraska Service Center on March 10, 2014 along with his adjustment of status (I-485) application since EB-2 priority dates for Taiwanese nationals were current. On July 17, 2014, the USCIS approved his I-140 petition without any Requests for Evidence.

When we filed our client’s I-140 (NIW) application, we concurrently filed I-485 adjustment of status applications for our client and his wife. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices and fingerprint appointment came on time. While our client was waiting for the adjudication of his I-140, our client received his work and travel permit from the USCIS.

Eventually, on August 20, 2014, the USCIS Nebraska Service Center approved our client and his wife’s adjustment of status application. Our client and his wife are now green card holders.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: EB-2 I-140 Petition / Response to Notice of Intent to Deny

EMPLOYER: Radio Broadcasting Company

BENEFICIARY: Zambian Business Operating Manager

LOCATION: Texas

Our client is a business operating manager from Zambia, who used to work at a radio broadcasting company in Texas under his OPT program. While he was working there, the company was willing to do an immigration petition for him, second-preference. Our client has a Master’s degree in Business Administration and has worked for this company for a year under the OPT program. Currently, our client is in F-2 status. He could not continue working there since his OPT expired.

After talking to our client, our firm concluded that his potential employer can petition him as a Business Operating Manager. Based on our client’s educational, professional and working background as an engineer and management analyst, our office determined that he is eligible for EB-2 classification.

Prior to filing the PERM labor certification, 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 Labor Certification 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.  On January 9, 2014, we filed the PERM labor certification application.  Eventually, on June 23, 2014, the PERM labor certification was approved.

Once the PERM was certified, we then proceeded with the I-140 petition filing. Our office submitted an “ability to pay” letter for the I-140 petition application on July 11, 2014 via premium processing. We included the job offer letter, employer’s tax records, and other necessary supporting documents. However, on July 23, 2014, the USCIS Texas Service Center issued a Notice of Intent to Deny for our client’s I-140 petition. According to the Notice of Intent to Deny, the USCIS requested the Petitioner to prove “ability to pay” for beneficiary’s proposed salary. In response to that, our office showed the beneficiary’s previous pay stubs and demonstrated that his previous salary was over and above the prevailing wage for his proposed position. Our office filed a Response to Notice of Intent to Deny which included a 7-page brief and supporting evidence on August 11, 2014.

Eventually, the USCIS approved the I-140 petition on August 15, 2014. Now, with the approved EB-2 I-140 petition (priority date for EB2 Zambian nationals is current), our client can file his adjustment of status application at any time (he could have filed it simultaneously, but beneficiary wanted to make sure the I-140 was approved first).

{ 0 comments }

CASE: H-1B Visa Petition

PETITIONER: IT Consulting Company in New Jersey

BENEFICIARY: Indian Systems Analyst in India

Our client is an IT Consulting Company located in New Jersey.  They contacted our office in the middle of February this year to seek legal assistance for a possible H-1B petitions for prospective foreign employees.

The beneficiary obtained his Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science in India. Beneficiary is currently residing at India. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is a Systems Analyst which we argued qualifies as a specialty occupation.

Upon retention, our office prepared and eventually filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on March 31, 2014 via regular processing. This H-1B petition was selected after the lottery.

However, the USCIS mailed a Request for Evidence to the Petitioner-Employer and requested Petitioner to submit additional evidence to establish that the proffered position to the beneficiary qualified as a “Specialty Occupation” on June 26, 2014. The USCIS requested the Petitioner to submit more evidence regarding whether similar businesses in the same industry require a degree or its equivalence for the proffered position.

The USCIS was skeptical and argued that the proffered “Systems Analyst” position in Petitioner’s business did not qualify as a “Specialty Occupation”. They mentioned that the law clearly states that an H-1B classification may be granted to an alien who will perform services in a specialty occupation which requires theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent as a minimum requirement for entry into the occupation in the United States, and who is qualified to perform services in the specialty occupation because he has attained a baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent in the specialty occupation.

The main issue for the client’s H-1B application was whether the “Systems Analyst” position for this IT Consulting Company Petitioner required a bachelor’s degree or an equivalent to make this position a “specialty occupation.”

We gathered supporting documents from both the Petitioner and Beneficiary and did research on the industry, focusing on similarly sized businesses, to demonstrate that a bachelor’s degree is commonly required for this position.

In the response brief, our office argued that the degree requirement is common to this industry in parallel positions among similar organizations.  We provided evidence that the position of Systems Analyst or Computer Systems Analyst is a common position required by similarly sized IT consulting company.  Also, we provided evidence that Petitioner’s competitors normally require degrees in a specific specialty for closely related positions like that of Systems Analyst.  Moreover, our office asserted that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. Other documents pertaining to an in-house project was also submitted.

Our office filed a detailed Response to RFE brief with exhibits to the USCIS Vermont Service Center on July 23, 2014.  Eventually, our client’s H-1B application was approved on August 7, 2014. Now, the beneficiary can apply for an H-1B visa at the U.S. Embassy in India, and upon the issuance of visa, he can work for the Petitioner from October 1, 2014 for three years.

{ 0 comments }