CASE: I-90
APPLICANT: Cuban
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our Cuban client has been a green card holder since 1973.  However, his card expired in January 2011, and he did not renew it until he contacted our office in January 2012. He retained our office for his green card renewal on January 26, 2012. One day after our retention, our office filed an I-90 extension/renewal application on January 27, 2012.    Our client was fingerprinted and a background check was conducted for him. Eventually, his I-90 was approved on June 18, 2012 and his green card was extended for ten years.

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 success stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE:  I-130
CLIENT: Mexican
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client is from Mexico who came to the U.S. without inspection and admission in 1988 with her parents. Since that time, she never left the United States.

In November 1991, our client’s father filed an I-130 (F2A) petition for her mother.  This I-130 petition was approved in March 1992.  At the time the I-130 Petition was approved, our client was a minor and was a derivative beneficiary. However, our client’s parents divorced in 2007.  Furthermore, our client was placed in removal proceeding in December 2009.

Around November 2010, our client contacted our office to represent her at removal proceedings. After we reviewed her previous immigration documents, we determined that she might be eligible to adjust her status under INA 245(i) and the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA).  She retained our office on December 1, 2010 and our attorney represented her at her master calendar hearing.  Cancellation of Removal relief was requested and we preserved possible adjustment of status relief through INA 245(i) and CSPA.

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.

Section 3 of CSPA, codified in section 203(h) of the INA, provides that “If the age of the alien is determined to be 21 years of age or older… the alien’s petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.”

Our client was the derivative beneficiary of her father’s petition for her mother in November, 1991.  Our client is now older than 21. According to Section 3 of CSPA, a new I-130 petition by our client’s father on behalf of our client should automatically retain the priority date of the original I-130 petition, which was November 1991, in which our client was a derivative beneficiary. If this new I-130 is approved with a November 1991 priority date, our client would be eligible to adjust under 245(i) since the priority date is current and the petition was filed before January 1998.  So it was two petitions that saved her case, one for 245i, and the other for adjustment eligibility, retaining the old priority date under CSPA.

On January 11, 2012, our office filed the I-130 Petition with a cover brief (citing the CSPA provision) and other supporting documents.  Her I-130 was approved by the USCIS California Service Center on June 14, 2012 with the old priority date (November 1991).  Now, we can work on terminating her proceedings for CIS adjustment of status.

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 245i success stories, please click here.

For other CSPA 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 }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status
CLIENT: Ukraine
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in June 2008 with a J-1 exchange visitor visa from Ukraine.  She married a U.S. Citizen in December 2011 and retained our office on January 9, 2012 for her adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on February 28, 2012.  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. On June 18, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS office.  We accompanied them at the interview as well.  On the same day, her green card application was approved.

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 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 }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status
CLIENT: India
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in December 2000 as an H-4 visa holder from India.  Although her authorized stay in the U.S. expired in January 2004, she has stayed in the United States since then. In September 2011, she married her U.S. Citizen husband and retained our office on October 11, 2011 for her adjustment of status application. Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on October 24, 2011. 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 February 10, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, OH USCIS. Our attorney accompanied them as well.

However, after the interview, the CIS office issued a Form I-72 asking for: a civil marriage certificate / abstract for our client and his previous husband, and an explanation as to why this marriage was not listed nor acknowledged during the interview. We reviewed the documents that she provided us after and realized that her previous marriage was only a religious marriage and not registered in the state of Ohio. Under immigration law, a religious marriage is considered a valid marriage for immigration purposes only if it is recognized by the sovereign in that country or state as a valid marriage.  Matter of Ceballos, 16 I&N Dec. 765 (BIA 1979).  Since our client’s previous religious marital ceremony was not registered in Ohio, it is not a valid marriage for immigration purposes. On May 8, 2012, our office filed a response to the Request for Evidence which included an affidavit from our client.

On May 30, 2012, our client’s I-485 adjustment of status application was approved. After 12 years in the United States, she is finally a permanent resident.

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.

{ 0 comments }

CASE:  I-485 Adjustment of Status under the INA 245(i) provision
CLIENT: Chinese
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client is from Hong Kong, China, who came to the U.S. without inspection and admission in August 2001. He never left the United States since he came.

In March 1990, our client’s uncle filed an I-130 (fourth preference) petition for his mother.  This I-130 petition was approved in April 1990.  At the time the I-130 Petition was approved, our client was a minor and was a derivative beneficiary. Later, our client’s father filed an I-130 petition on behalf of our client in March 2003.  This Petition was approved in June 2005.

Our client contacted us in February of 2012 for consultation. We determined that he is eligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(i). Our client retained us on March 1, 2012.

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 began 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.

Our client was the beneficiary of his father’s petition in March 2003, which is current, but this by itself would not have allowed him to adjust status since this was filed after January 1998 and because he came in 2001, thus not meeting the December 21, 2000 physical presence requirement. However, he was also the beneficiary of a petition filed before January 14, 1998, that of his uncle’s petition for his mother. So it was the two petitions that saved his case, one for 245i, and the other for adjustment eligibility.

Once retained, our office prepared and filed his adjustment of status application under the 245(i) provision. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices and fingerprint appointment all came on time.  We thoroughly prepared our client prior to his interview.  On June 8, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu accompanied him at the interview as well. Due to the complexity of the case, we made sure the officer was clear about our client’s 245i eligibility. On the same day, our client’s I-485 application was approved.  He finally became 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 245i 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 }

CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition / I-485 under the INA 245(i) provision
CLIENT: St. Lucian
LOCATION: New York, NY

Our client is from St. Lucia who came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitors visa in December 2003. Since that time, she never left the United States.  Because of her overstay, removal proceedings was initiated against her in September 2010.

In May 1986, our client’s aunt filed an I-130 (fourth preference) petition for her father.  This I-130 petition was approved in August 1986.  At the time the I-130 Petition was approved, our client was a minor and was a derivative beneficiary. Later, our client’s father filed an I-130 petition on behalf of our client in February 1998.  This Petition was approved in November of that year.

Our client contacted us around December of 2010 for consultation and sought legal assistance for her removal proceedings. After the consultation, we determined that she is eligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(i). Our client retained us on January 13, 2011.

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.

Our client was the beneficiary of her father’s petition in February 1998, which is current, but this by itself would not have allowed her to adjust status since this was filed after January 1998 and because she came in 2003, thus not meeting the December 21, 2000 physical presence requirement. However, she was also the beneficiary of a petition filed before January 14, 1998, that of her aunt’s petition for her father. So it was two petitions that saved her case, one for 245i, and the other for adjustment eligibility.

Once retained, our office promptly filed a Motion to Change Venue from Buffalo to New York.  This was granted and on April 1, 2011, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to Terminate proceedings with an attached I-485 application and its supporting documents. The DHS counsel in New York agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to Terminate without prejudice on August 17, 2011.

Once her case was terminated, the USCIS New York scheduled an I-485 interview for our client. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our client through conference call. On May 1, 2012, our client was interviewed at the New York City USCIS office. Attorney JP Sarmiento accompanied her at the interview as well. Due to the complexity of the case, we made sure the officer was clear about our client’s 245i eligibility. On May 30, 2012, our client’s I-485 application was approved.  She finally became 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 245i success stories, please click here.

For termination success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact us anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Employment-Based Adjustment of Status / Derivative Beneficiary
CLIENT: Filipino
LOCATION: Des Plaines, IL

Our client came to the United States in 2007 with an H-4 visa as a dependent of his H-1B visa holding wife from the Philippines.  His wife was working as a registered nurse in the United States. His wife’s previous employer filed an I-140 petition under the EB-3 classification on her behalf.  The petition was later approved, and our client’s priority date was sometime in August, 2001.  Through our legal assistance, our client’s wife obtained her green card in March 2012.

In February 2012, our client sought legal assistance from our office regarding his adjustment of status application.  Based on our client’s wife’s approved I-140, our client was eligible to file for adjustment of status.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application and I-765 Employment Authorization Documentation on February 20, 2012.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices and fingerprint appointment all came on time.  On May 16, 2012, the USCIS Nebraska Service Center approved our client’s adjustment of status application.  After a long wait, our client finally became 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 employment-based adjustment of status  success stories, please click here.

For other family-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.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status
CLIENT: Indian
LOCATION: Washington, D.C.

Our client came to the United States in May 2008 with an F-1 Student visa from India.  He married a U.S. Citizen in December 2011 and retained our office on December 12, 2011 for his adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on February 1, 2012.  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 through conference calls. On May 17, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Fairfax, VA USCIS office.  On the same day, his green card application was approved.

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.

{ 0 comments }

Case: I-130/I-485
Issue: Visa Waiver Entry
Applicant/Beneficiary – Italian
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client entered the United States from Italy in January 2012 under the visa waiver program. As a Visa Waiver Entrant, she was only authorized to remain in the United States for 90 days. However, she has remained in the United States ever since.

Our client is a doctor, and she mentioned that she came on a J-1 visa before. So even though old visas and passports were not required, we asked her to show us those, together with her old DS-2019, so that we could check if she was subject to the 2-year foreign residency requirement. Our first inclination was that she was subject, as most J-1 entrants who are physicians are. When we saw the J-1 documents, we found out that she indeed was not subject. And so we proceeded with the adjustment of status case.

She married her U.S. Citizen spouse in September 2011 in Italy and her U.S. citizen husband filed an I-130 petition on October 4, 2011.  One main issue in her green card application through marriage was the fact that she came to the United States under the visa waiver program. As our office wrote in a 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-485 Adjustment of Status Application on March 5, 2012. Our office requested the CIS to exercise favorable discretion in granting adjustment of status despite her visa waiver entry.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, 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 May 15, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS Field Office. We accompanied them at the interview as well. Despite the visa waiver entry and subsequent adjustment of status issue, the USCIS officer approved her 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 visa waiver success stories, please click here.

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.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status
CLIENT: From Suriname
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in October 16, 2000 with a B-2 visitor visa from Suriname.  She married a U.S. Citizen in October 2011 and retained our office on October 25, 2011 for her adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on December 21, 2011.  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. On April 27, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS office.  We accompanied them at the interview as well.  On May 7, 2012, her green card application was approved.

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 immigration 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 }