CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition / I-485 Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Chinese
LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client is a Chinese citizen who came to the U.S. on a B-2 Visitor’s visa in September 2011. She has stayed in the United States since then. Because of her overstay, the Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceeding.

Our client currently resides in Ohio with her current U.S. Citizen husband. They were married in October. After our office was retained, our office filed an I-130 Petition with bona fide marriage evidence on January 15, 2015.  While the I-130 petition was pending, our client appeared at the Cleveland Immigration Court for her master calendar hearing.  Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office represented her at the hearing, did the pleading and sought for adjustment of status relief upon the approval of the I-130 petition.

Her I-130 petition was approved by the USCIS on June 24, 2015 without any interview or RFE request.  Once the I-130 was approved, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to Terminate proceedings with the I-485 application and supporting documents. The DHS counsel in Cleveland agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice in September 2015.

After her removal proceeding was terminated, our client retained us again for her I-485 adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on November 6, 2015. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permit all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients. On January 26, 2016, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, OH USCIS. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our client.  After the interview, her I-485 application was approved.  Now, our client is a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Immigrant Petition and Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Filipina

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States from the Philippines on a B-2 visitor’s visa in January 2012. She married a U.S. Citizen in February 2014 and retained our office on August 26, 2015 for her green card application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485  of Status Application on October 28, 2015.  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 as well. On January 26, 2016, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our clients as well. Eventually, on the same day of the interview, her green card application was approv

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Fiancée Visa

PETITIONER: US Citizen in Ohio

BENEFICIARY: Colombian

PETITION FILED: March 4, 2015

PETITION APPROVED: April 2, 2015

K-1 VISA APPROVED: November 25, 2015

Our client, a US Citizen Petitioner, met his Colombian fiancée in Colombia in 2013. They started their relationship, and he visited Colombia. In June 2014, he proposed to her during their trip to Mexico. After his proposal, he retained our firm to file a fiancée petition for her.

After retention, we informed our client about the necessary supporting documents to demonstrate the bona fide nature of their relationship. Our client retained our office on November 5, 2014. We helped him and his fiancée draft letters in support of the fiancé petition, and we filed the petition on March 4, 2015.

On April 2, 2015, less than a month of the filing, the I-129F fiancée petition was approved. On November 25, 2015, our client’s fiancée appeared at the U.S. Embassy in Bogota, Colombia for her K-1 visa interview. The interview went well, and on the same day, the U.S. Embassy issued her K-1 visa.

{ 0 comments }

CASE:  I-130 / I-485 / I-601 Hardship Waiver of Inadmissibility

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Filipino

LOCATION: Chicago, IL

Our client entered the U.S. in 1993.  Later, he married his U.S. citizen wife and his wife filed an I-130 petition for him and he concurrently filed an I-485 adjustment of status application.  Our client also filed an I-601 wavier application with his adjustment application with the help of his previous immigration lawyer.  He needed to file an I-601 waiver because he was found inadmissible due to his previous immigration law violation.

In 1997, our client went back to his father who was critically ill. After he visited his father, our client re-applied for his visitor’s visa to come back to the United States. However, he claimed himself to be single rather than “married” on his visitor’s visa application in order to get his visitor’s visa easily. He got his visa and came back to the United States. Nonetheless, when he applied for his permanent residency in the United States, the USCIS found that he misrepresented a material fact to get his B-2 visitor’s visa. As a result of his actions, was found to be inadmissible.  (Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible).

As mentioned above, his green card application was denied, as well as the I-601 waiver application. He had multiple tries, but none of them were successful.

Our client contacted our office in November 2011 to pursue the I-130 / 485 and I-601 waiver once again. Our firm thoroughly analyzed why his previous I-601 waiver applications were denied.  Based on his story and surrounding circumstances (hardship to his U.S. citizen wife if he is deported), our office determined that he has a good chance of winning another I-601 application. He retained our office on November 21, 2011.

If someone is found to be inadmissible under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the INA, the INA Section 212(i) provides for a discretionary waiver of the fraud or misrepresentation inadmissibility ground.  To qualify for the waiver, the alien must establish that his or her USC spouse would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission.  INA Section 212(i)(l).  In addition to the equities presented, the USCIS may consider the nature of the fraud or misrepresentation.

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 an unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate.

Our client’s I-601 application had a good chance since our client’s U.S. Citizen wife suffers from physical pains emanating from her surgery and various incidents in the past.  Thus, in the I-601 brief in support, our office included extensive medical reports of his wife. We argued that if he is removed from the United States, extreme hardship to his wife is clearly foreseeable and evident.  His wife needs consistent and continuous physical therapy to help deal with her pain. Also, it would be extremely difficult for her to get the same level of physical therapy and satisfactory access to medical services in the Philippines in case she joins our client there.

In our brief, we also contended that our client and his wife have maintained strong family ties in the United States, that his wife will have extreme difficulty to find the same level of occupation in the Philippines, that his wife will face extreme financial and emotional difficulties if she is removed.

On May 2, 2012, our client and his wife appeared at the interview in the Chicago USCIS Field Office.  Subsequently, one year later, the USCIS requested another interview for our client to appear at the USCIS Chicago Field Office. Our client appeared at the USCIS office on November 5, 2013 and on both occasions, our attorneys accompanied our client. Eventually, his I-601 waiver application was approved on July 10, 2015.

Once his I-601 was approved, our client retained our office again for his adjustment of status application. In late July of 2015, the USCIS notified us that the old I-130 from his wife for him was terminated. Thus, we prepared both the I-130 and I-485 applications again.

Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on July 29, 2015.  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 call. On December 7, 2015, our client was interviewed at the Chicago, Illinois USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our clients as well. The interview went well, but the officer informed us that due to the complex and extensive nature of our client’s case, it would take more time for her to adjudicate his applications. Nevertheless, on January 13, 2016, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Family Based Adjustment of Status (F2B) / 245(i)

CLIENT: Indian

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the U.S. from India and applied for his permanent residency three times in the past. His past efforts were unsuccessful and applications were denied due to numerous and complex issues (aging out, unlawful presence, priority dates). His U.S. citizen uncle filed an I-130 petition for his father in February 1989. With this I-130 petition, his parents came to the United States and became green card holders. Although our client was a derivative beneficiary of this I-130 petition, at the time of his adjustment of status, our client’s application was denied due to the “aging out” issue. After the first denial, our client’s father filed an I-130 F2B petition for our client and our client’s employer also filed an EB-2 I-140 petition as well. Nevertheless, our client’s adjustment of status application was denied due to the “unlawful presence” that he incurred unbeknownst to him (he changed his status in the U.S. from B-2 to H-1B, but there was a gap).

Our client contacted us around July of 2015 for consultation and sought legal assistance for his adjustment of status. After consultation, we determined that he is eligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(i) since his uncle’s I-130 petition grand-fathered our client’s case. Our client retained us on July 29, 2015.

Section 245(i) of the INA allows certain foreign nationals to become permanent residents of the United States despite entering without inspection (EWI) or overstaying (if beneficiary of petitions filed not by an immediate relative). Immigrants are barred from adjusting their status if they entered the United States without first being inspected and admitted by a Customs and Border Patrol officer and if they have either failed to maintain lawful status or been unlawfully employed in the country, with certain exceptions. Section 245(i) was first added to law in 1994 to allow certain people who otherwise would not be eligible to adjust their status to be able to do so upon payment of a $1,000 fine.

Four years later, on January 14, 1998, Congress phased Section 245(i) out of law. Immigrants and their families who had already begun the process of changing their status under Section 245(i) by January 14, 1998 were grandfathered into the section’s benefits. However, this left thousands of otherwise qualified persons who had not begun the process unable to adjust status in the United States. They could not return to their countries to begin the legal process of obtaining their permanent residency in the United States also without being subject to either a three- or a 10-year bar upon returning to the United States.

On December 21, 2000, Congress extended the qualifying date for Section 245(i) benefits to April 30, 2001. This law allowed immigrants who had labor certifications or visa petitions filed on their behalf between 1998 and April 30, 2001, to qualify for adjustment of status. Those who were beneficiaries of petitions filed prior to January 14, 1998 could still adjust despite an EWI record, and those people do not have to meet the December 2000 physical presence requirement.

As mentioned above, our client, despite “aging-out” and despite not having physical presence in December 2000, is eligible to adjust status based on the approved I-130 F2b Petition filed by his father because he is INA 245(i) eligible as the “beneficiary” of an I-130 Petition filed by his uncle to his father in February 1989. We also argued that our client was specifically listed as a derivative beneficiary of this I-130.  Therefore, he is grandfathered under 245(i) and even though he “aged-out”, he remains a beneficiary for purposes of 245(i). Moreover, since the I-130 Petition was filed in February, 1989, which is before January 14, 1998, he does not need to prove physical presence in December 2000.

On August 6, 2015, our office filed his I-485 adjustment of status application under the 245(i) category for our client.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices and fingerprint appointment all came on time.  Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our client as well. On January 7, 2016, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS office.  Attorney JP Sarmiento from our office accompanied our client. Eventually, on January 13, 2016, our client’s I-485 adjustment of status application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751 / Response to RFE

APPLICANT: Filipina

LOCATION: Miami, FL

Our client contacted our office in November 2015 regarding a Response to RFE for her I-751 application filing. She is from the Philippines and got her 2-year conditional green card through her marriage to her U.S. citizen husband.  She obtained a 2-year conditional green card in 2013, and her conditional residency terminated in 2015.

To comply with immigration requirements, our client and her husband filed an I-751 Joint Petition to Remove Conditions before its expiration date. However, she did not have an attorney back then, and did not submit sufficient evidence to prove the bona fideness of her marriage to her U.S. citizen husband. As a result of that, on November 13, 2015, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) for our client’s I-751 filing.

After consulting, she retained our office on November 19, 2015.

We reviewed the CIS’ RFE letter and prepared our response.  On December 15, 2015, our office filed the Response to RFE to the USCIS with multiple affidavits from her friends and family members, joint bank statements, utility bills, credit card statements, joint tax records, joint vehicle title, insurance policies, and photos of our client and her husband to demonstrate the bona fideness of their marriage.

After that, there was no interview request for our client’s I-751 application. Instead, on January 11, 2016, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application and our client received her 10-year green card which removed the condition.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition / I-485 Adjustment of Status / Response to Notice of Intent to Revoke

CLIENT: Nigerian

LOCATION: New Orleans, LA

Our Nigerian client came to the United States in August 2011 with a valid F-1 student visa to study in a college. However, he did not maintain status and was placed in removal proceedings in July 2012. After he got a Notice to Appear, he appeared at his initial master calendar hearing at the New Orleans Immigration Court without an attorney.

In May of 2014, he contacted our office and asked us whether we can take his case. He was married to a US Citizen, but he also had two previous marriages and divorces, also to US Citizens. We told him an I-130 can be filed, but that we need bona fides from his first two marriages also. We explained that the strength of his wife’s I-130 for him would also depend on how he can prove that his first two marriages were in good faith.

He retained our office on May 16, 2014. He married his U.S. wife in May 2014 and our office filed the I-130 petition for our client with a bona fide marriage exemption letter and bona fide marital documents. We organized the exhibits so that bona fide evidence from his first two marriages were also shown. We filed the I-130 application to the USCIS on June 12, 2014.

On June 17, 2014, our attorney Glen Yu appeared at his master calendar hearings via telephonic appearance. Attorney Yu did pleadings for our client, requested adjustment of status relief for our client, and requested a continuance based on a pending I-130 petition. However, the DHS requested a Velarde hearing to the Court. The DHS requested this hearing to determine whether proceedings should be continued to allow USCIS to adjudicate the I-130. DHS argued that our client’s marriage to his U.S. citizen spouse is presumptively invalid under immigration purposes since he married his wife after initiation of removal proceedings.

A Velarde Hearing is a hearing to establish whether good cause exists to continue proceedings for adjudication of a pending I-130 petition. A variety of factors may be considered, including, but not limited to: (1) DHS’ response to the Motion to continue; (2) whether the underlying visa petition is prima facie approvable; (3) the Respondent’s statutory eligibility for adjustment of status; (4) whether the Respondent’s application for adjustment merits a favorable exercise of discretion; and (5) the reason for the continuance and any other relevant factors. Matter of Hashimi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009).

The Velarde hearing for our client was scheduled for August 18, 2014. Prior to the hearing, our office filed a brief in support and more documents to demonstrate the bona fide nature of our client’s marriage to his U.S. citizen wife.  Attorney Sung Hee Yu from our firm prepared him and his wife extensively via conference calls. He also represented our client at the Velarde Hearing at the New Orleans Immigration Court on August 18, 2014.

The hearing went well and as a result, the Court concluded that our client’s I-130 petition is prima facie approvable. After the Velarde hearing, the USCIS scheduled the I-130 interview for our client and his U.S. citizen wife. Our office prepared them for their interview. On December 31, 2014, our client and his wife appeared at the USCIS New Orleans Field Office for their I-130 interview. The interview went well, and the USCIS approved the I-130 petition for our client on the same day.

Once his I-130 was approved, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to terminate proceedings with the I-485 application and supporting documents. The DHS counsel in New Orleans agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice on August 14, 2015.

After his removal proceeding was terminated, our client retained us again for his I-485 adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on September 14, 2015. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permit all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients via conference call. On December 1, 2015, our client was interviewed at the New Orleans, LA USCIS.  Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our clients.

Although the interview went well, the USCIS New Orleans office issued Notice of Intent to Revoke our client’s I-130 petition. In the Notice of Intent to Revoke, the USCIS argued that our client’s marriage to her U.S. citizen spouse was in violation of Louisiana law so that the marriage is invalid. However, after careful review of related marital laws and local statutes, we determined that our client’s marriage to his wife was valid. Our office promptly filed the Response to Notice of Intent to Revoke on December 15, 2015. Eventually, on January 13, 2016, his I-485 application was approved.  Now, our client is a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Consular Processing (Immigrant Visa)

 CLIENT: US Citizen Petitioner Daughter; Filipina Beneficiary Mother in the Philippines

 LOCATION: Houston, TX; Beneficiary: Philippines

 IV APPROVED: December 15, 2015

Our client retained us to bring her mother over from the Philippines. She was born and raised in the Philippines, but was naturalized in the United States. Prior to retaining our office, our client already filed the I-130 petition for her mother and this I-130 Petition was approved by the USCIS. Once we were retained, we then started the immigrant visa processing phase of trying to get her mother over to the United States.

On April 29, 2015, we filed the immigrant visa packets to the National Visa Center who in turn forwarded our client’s materials to the U.S. Embassy in Manila, Philippines. An interview notice was set for our client’s mother at the U.S. Embassy in Manila, and we prepared her for her interview.  She did her interview on September 21, 2015. Eventually, on December 15, 2015, the U.S. Embassy in Manila, Philippines approved and issued her immigrant visa.

With the approved immigrant visa, our client’s mother can come to the United States immediately, and she will get her green card within two months of entry.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Immigrant Petition and Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Indian

LOCATION: Columbus, OH

Our client came to the United States from India on an H-1B visa in May 2013. He married a U.S. Citizen in September 2015 and retained our office on September 30, 2015 for his green card application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on October 6, 2015.  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 as well. On January 12, 2016, our client was interviewed at Columbus, Ohio USCIS office. Eventually, on the same day, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

Case: I-130/I-485

Applicant/Beneficiary – Korean

Location: Columbus, OH

Our client entered the United States in July 2015 from South Korea under the visa waiver program. He married his U.S. citizen wife in March 2015 in South Korea. He came to the United States as a visitor with his wife and first intended to help his wife who just began her graduate studies in the United States.  As a Visa Waiver Entrant, he was only authorized to remain in the United States for 90 days. While he was staying in the United States, he was informed that he could file adjustment of status in the United States even though he entered as a visa waiver entrant.  He contacted our office, and they retained us on August 31, 2015.

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.

Our office filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on October 7, 2015.  Our office requested the CIS to exercise favorable discretion in granting adjustment of status. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permit all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients at our office. On January 8, 2016, our client was interviewed at the Columbus Ohio USCIS Field Office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu, Esq. from our office accompanied our clients for the interview. Despite the visa waiver issue, on the same day of the interview, the USCIS approved his green card application.  Now, our client is a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }