CASE: Marriage-Based Green Card (Same Sex Marriage Case)

CLIENT: Chinese

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came from China on an F-1 student visa. She has a same-sex U.S. Citizen spouse and they married in August 2017 in California.

On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of “marriage” and “spouse” to apply only to heterosexual unions, by Section 3 of the defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013). After Windsor decision, the USCIS implemented a new policy that the USCIS officer must review immigration via petitions filed on behalf of a same-sex spouse in the same manner as those filed on behalf of an opposite-sex spouse. As long as a same-sex couple is married in a U.S. state that recognizes same-sex marriage, their marriage shall be considered a valid marriage under the immigration law.

Our client contacted our office and retained us on September 15, 2017 for her I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application. Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application, together with all necessary supporting documents, on October 30, 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 at our office. On February 13, 2018, our clients appeared at USCIS Cleveland Field Office for the interview. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu accompanied our clients as well. The interview went well and our client’s green card application was approved on February 14, 2018.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

NATIONALITY: Filipina                                                                                                      

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client is from the Philippines who came to the U.S. on a J-1 exchange visitor’s visa in November 2016. Her J-1 program did not subject her to the 2-year foreign residency requirement (INA Section 212(e)).  In October 2017, our client married her current U.S. citizen husband.  Once she married, she retained our office for her green card application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on November 20, 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 at our office as well. On February 1, 2018, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland Ohio USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office also accompanied our clients as well. Eventually, on the same day of her interview, her green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-130 / BIA Remand / Stokes Interview

CLIENT: Sierra Leone

LOCATION: Cleveland OH

Our client came from Sierra Leone in January 2011 as a visitor. She married her U.S. Citizen husband in September 2013. Her authorized stay period was expired at the time of her marriage. Due to her overstay, our client was placed in removal proceedings in December 2013.  She retained our office in January 2014 for legal assistance for her removal proceedings and I-130 filing.

Unfortunately, on November 5, 2015, the USCIS Cleveland office denied our client’s I-130 petition, after an almost three-hour Stokes interview. Before and at the interview, extensive evidence of bona fide marriage covering 2 years of marriage was submitted. The couple was able to answer a majority of the questions in the two and half hour interview, and the grounds and discrepancies relied upon by the USCIS in denying the I-130 compared to the majority and relevance of the correctly answered questioned together with the extensive evidence is relatively minor.

In response to this denial decision, our client timely filed a Notice of Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals from a decision of a USCIS officer on December 5, 2015 through the assistance of our office.  The BIA appeal was pending for a long time. Eventually, on July 8, 2016, the BIA found that a remand is warranted for our client’s case.  As a result, on September 26, 2017, our client and her U.S. Citizen husband appeared at the USCIS Cleveland Field Office for the I-130 follow-up interview after this case was remanded to the USCIS.

Even after the second interview, the I-130 was pending without any issuance of RFE or Notice of Intent to Deny. In the meanwhile, our client filed Motion for Continuance for her Master Calendar hearing appearance based on pending I-130 petition. The Cleveland Immigration Court kept granting our Motions. Nevertheless, the I-130 petition was still pending.

The USCIS Cleveland Field Office finally approved our client’s I-130 petition on January 23, 2018. Now, our client can file the adjustment of status application if the Immigration Court grants our Motion to Terminate without prejudice.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-130 and Consular Processing (Immigrant Visa) – Marriage-Petition

Our client is a Lawful Permanent Resident (Green card holder) from the Philippines. He got his green card through family petition; however, his wife and children did not get the green cards back then. In August 2015, he retained our office to bring his wife and two children to the States via consular processing. Once retained, our office filed the I-130 petition on October 22, 2015 and this petition was approved by the USCIS on August 5, 2016.

Once the priority date became current, we filed the immigrant visa packets to the National Visa Center on March 7, 2017, who in turn forwarded our clients’ materials to the U.S. Embassy in Manila, Philippines. An interview notice was set for the client at the US Embassy in Manila, and we prepared them for the interview. On November 20, 2017, the interview was conducted.  Eventually, after the interview, the U.S. Embassy in Manila, Philippines approved and issued their immigrant visas.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-821D Application for Consideration for Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals / I-765 Employment Authorization Document

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Korean Client in Dayton, OH

As our office explained before on our website, the USCIS issued a memorandum in August 2012 regarding deferred action of childhood arrivals cases.  According to the USCIS Deferred Action Memorandum issued in August 2012, an individual who meets the following criteria may apply for deferred action:

• Was under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
• Came to the U.S. before reaching his/her 16th birthday;
• Has continuously resided in the U.S. since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;
• Was physically present in the U.S. on June 15, 2012, and at the time of application to the USCIS;
• Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012;
• Is currently in school, has graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, has obtained a GED, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard or the U.S. Armed Forces; and
• Has not been convicted of a felony, a “significant misdemeanor,” three or more other misdemeanors, or does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety;

As of June 15, 2012, our client was twenty (20) years old.   Also, our client was studying at a college in Dayton, Ohio. Our client went to grade school, middle school and graduated from high school in the United States.  Also, since his last entry to the United States in December 2000, our client never left the United States.  Moreover, he was physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012 and has continuously resided in the United States since December, 2000.  Lastly, our client has never been convicted of a felony, a “significant misdemeanor,” three or more other misdemeanors, and does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.  So, our client was clearly eligible for this deferred action case. Eventually, he retained our office and we filed for the deferred action and his DACA was approved in November 2012. He retained us again in 2014 for his DACA renewal and it was extended until December 2017.

In September of 2017, he retained our office for the renewal of his DACA application again. Despite the elimination of the DACA program at that time, he was still eligible for the renewal. Our client sent us supporting documents that prove our client’s education history, physical presence in the United States, and his initial entry to the United States.  Our office also prepared Form I-821D and I-765, and drafted a detailed cover letter demonstrating why our client should merit this relief.

On September 25, 2017, our office filed his I-821D and I-765 to the USCIS.  Eventually, on January 11, 2018, the USCIS approved our client’s I-821D and I-765. His DACA status is extended to January 2020.

{ 0 comments }

CASE:   I-601A Provisional Unlawful Presence Hardship Waiver of Inadmissibility

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Chinese

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client came to the United States from China in October 1999 without inspection and admission. He married his U.S. citizen wife in 2010. They have two U.S. citizen children together.  His U.S. Citizen wife filed an I-130 petition for him on August 26, 2016. This I-130 petition was approved on December 8, 2016.

Our client cannot file for adjustment of status application due to his ground of inadmissibility. He needed a waiver of inadmissibility to become a green card holder. Moreover, our client was placed in removal proceedings and he has a final order of removal in absentia. Nevertheless, his I-212 (permission to reapply for admission into the United States) was approved on July 21, 2017.

Under current law, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are not eligible to adjust status in the United States must travel abroad and obtain an immigrant visa. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence while in the United States must obtain a waiver of inadmissibility to overcome the unlawful presence bars under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act before they can return to the United States.

In 2013, the USCIS announced of new policy called the provisional unlawful presence waiver. Beginning March 4, 2013, certain immigrant visa applicants who are spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens (immediate relatives) can apply for provisional unlawful presence waivers before they leave the United States. The provisional unlawful presence waiver process allows individuals, who only need a waiver of inadmissibility for unlawful presence, to apply for a waiver in the United States.

The new process is expected to shorten the time U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives while those family members are obtaining immigrant visas to become lawful permanent residents of the United States.

INA § 212(i) provides for a discretionary waiver of the entry without inspection inadmissibility ground. To qualify for the waiver, the alien must establish that his or her US Citizen spouse would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission. INA § 212(i)(1). In addition to the equities presented, the USCIS may consider the nature of the inadmissibility ground.

There is a seminal BIA case that deals with this waiver.  In Matter of Cervantes, 22 I & N Dec. 560 (BIA 1999), the BIA identified the factors to be considered in determining whether a qualifying relative would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission.  Those factors include: the presence of LPR or USC family ties both within and outside the United States; the conditions in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties to that country; the financial impact of departure from the United States; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to the unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate.

Our client’s I-601A application had a good chance since our client’s U.S. Citizen wife suffer from a great degree of medical hardship. In the I-601A brief and supporting documents, our office included extensive medical reports of his wife.  We argued that if he was removed from the United States, extreme hardship to his wife is clearly foreseeable and evident.  His wife has ongoing medical hardships and she would not be able to take care of her own needs and the bulk of their family chores, most importantly taking care of their children. Also, it would be extremely difficult for her to get the same level of therapy and satisfactory access to medical services in China in case she joins our client there.

In our brief, we also argued that our client and his wife have maintained strong family ties in the United States, that his wife will have difficulty in finding the same level of employment in China, that our client has good employment in the United States, and that his U.S. citizen child and his wife will face extreme financial and emotional difficulties if he is removed.

On August 21, 2017, we filed the I-601A waiver application which included the brief in support, his wife’s extensive medical examination records, and other documents that demonstrated hardship to her husband if she is removed from the United States. Eventually, without any RFE, her I-601A waiver was approved on December 19, 2017. Now, he can file packet 3 and 4 here in the United States, and would go to China shortly to get his immigrant visa.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-130 (Petition for Mother) and Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Korean

LOCATION: Akron, OH

Our client retained us to petition for his mother for her green card. Our client was born and raised in South Korea, but was naturalized in the United States in 2015. He contacted our office in late April of 2017 and discussed with us the green card process. After consultation, he retained our office on April 26, 2017.

Once retained, our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Applications on May 17, 2017 for his mother.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and a work permit all came on time. Eventually, on January 5, 2018, our client’s mother’s adjustment of status applications was approved. Now, she is a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751

APPLICANT: Burkina Faso

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client contacted our office in July of 2016 regarding his I-751 application.

He is from Burkina Faso and he married a U.S. citizen. Through his marriage, he obtained a 2-year conditional green card in September 2014. Thus, his conditional residency terminated in September 2016.

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 21, 2016, and our office prepared an I-751 application for our client with other supplemental exhibits.

On August 15, 2016, our office filed an I-751 application to the USCIS with multiple affidavits from his friends and family members, joint bank statements, utility bills, joint leasing documents, joint tax documents, and photos of our client and his wife to demonstrate the bona fideness of their marriage.

Once the application was filed, the fingerprint notice was issued two weeks later. Eventually, on December 19, 2017, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application without any Request for Evidence (RFE).

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

NATIONALITY: Indian                                                                                                      

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client is from India who came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitor’s visa. In April 2016, our client married his current U.S. citizen wife.  He retained our office in February 2017 for his green card application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on February 8, 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 at our office. On June 23, 2017, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland Ohio USCIS office.  Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu also accompanied our clients. In July 2017, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence and requested our client to submit certified court records for his dismissed criminal case. Our client submitted the certified court disposition to the USCIS Cleveland Field Office on September 28, 2017. Eventually, on December 22, 2017, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE:  Immigrant Visa / I-601A Hardship Waiver of Inadmissibility

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Filipino

LOCATION: California / Manila, Philippines (Visa Interview)

Our client came to the United States from the Philippines in 2002 on a C1/D visa (Crewman). He remained in the United States after his entry in 2002. He married his U.S. citizen wife in 2009. His U.S. Citizen wife filed an I-130 petition for him in November 2009. This I-130 petition was approved on April 13, 2010.

However, our client cannot file for adjustment of status application due to his ground of inadmissibility (crewman entry and overstay). He needed a waiver of inadmissibility to become a green card holder.

Under current law, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are not eligible to adjust status in the United States must travel abroad and obtain an immigrant visa. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence while in the United States must obtain a waiver of inadmissibility to overcome the unlawful presence bars under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act before they can return to the United States

In 2013, the USCIS announced of new policy called the provisional unlawful presence waiver. Beginning March 4, 2013, certain immigrant visa applicants who are spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens (immediate relatives) can apply for provisional unlawful presence waivers before they leave the United States. The provisional unlawful presence waiver process allows individuals, who only need a waiver of inadmissibility for unlawful presence, to apply for a waiver in the United States.

The new process is expected to shorten the time U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives while those family members are obtaining immigrant visas to become lawful permanent residents of the United States.

INA § 212(i) provides for a discretionary waiver of the entry without inspection inadmissibility ground. To qualify for the waiver, the alien must establish that his or her US Citizen spouse would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission. INA § 212(i)(1). In addition to the equities presented, the USCIS may consider the nature of the inadmissibility ground.

There is a seminal BIA case that deals with this waiver.  In Matter of Cervantes, 22 I & N Dec. 560 (BIA 1999), the BIA identified the factors to be considered in determining whether a qualifying relative would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission.  Those factors include: the presence of LPR or USC family ties both within and outside the United States; the conditions in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties to that country; the financial impact of departure from the United States; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to the unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate.

In 2013, our client filed his first I-601A application to USCIS. However, USCIS denied it because his case does not demonstrate that his U.S. citizen wife will not suffer “extreme hardship.” He contacted our office in June 2016 and retained our office on July 6, 2016 for the re-file of I-601A application.

Our client’s I-601A application had a good chance since our client’s U.S. Citizen wife suffers from a great degree of hardship. We argued that if he was removed from the United States, extreme hardship to his wife is clearly foreseeable and evident. She would not be able to take care of her own needs and the bulk of their family chores, most importantly taking care of their child. Also, it would be extremely difficult for her to get the same level of economic stability in the Philippines in case she joins our client there.

In our brief, we also argued that our client and his wife have maintained strong family ties in the United States, that his wife will have difficulty in finding the same level of employment in the Philippines, and that his U.S. citizen children and his wife will face extreme emotional difficulties if he is removed.

On October 13, 2016, we filed the I-601A waiver application which included the brief in support, and documents that demonstrated hardship to his wife if he is removed from the United States. Eventually, his I-601A waiver was approved on February 21, 2017.

Once his I-601A waiver was approved, he retained our office again for his immigrant visa processing. Our office prepared and filed his immigrant visa application on July 6, 2017. In October 2017, the U.S. Embassy in Manila, Philippines informed our office that they scheduled an immigrant visa interview for our client. Our client went back to the Philippines to appear at his interview on November 27, 2017. On November 27, 2017, our client appeared at his immigrant visa interview at the Embassy. Eventually, on December 22, 2017, and the U.S. Embassy approved his immigrant visa.

Now, our client successfully came back to the United States with an approved immigrant visa and he will get his green card in a mail within two months.

{ 0 comments }