CASE: H-1B Change of Employer

PETITIONER: Software Development and IT Staffing Company

BENEFICIARY: Indian Computer Systems Analyst

LOCATION: Jacksonville, FL

Our client is a fast growing software developing and IT consulting company located in Jacksonville, FL. They contacted our office in September 2014 to seek assistance from our office for their foreign employee. The beneficiary is from India and he obtained his Master of Science degree in Computer Information Systems.  The proffered position for the Beneficiary is a Computer Systems Analyst 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 October 6, 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.  Later, our client wished to upgrade his case to premium processing services by submitting Form I-907 and paying $1225 to the USCIS. We made an upgrade request on October 17, 2014. There were no Requests for Evidence during the processing of the H-1B.  Eventually, our client’s H-1B Petition was approved on October 30, 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 (Change of Employer)

PETITIONER:  E-Commerce Merchandiser in Dallas, TX

BENEFICIARY: Korean Marketing Analyst in Seoul, South Korea

Our client is an E-Commerce Merchandising company located in Dallas, Texas.  They contacted our office in late September to seek legal assistance from our office for their foreign employee.  The beneficiary obtained her Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration in United States. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is a Marketing Analyst which we argued qualifies as a specialty occupation.

The foreign beneficiary in this case already had her H-1B visa from her previous employer which was in a similar industry, but she tried to change her employer and filed an H-1B transfer in February 2014. This H-1B transfer was denied, so she filed a Motion to Reopen in April 2014 which was subsequently denied by the USCIS in June 2014.

After that, she went back to South Korea and retained our firm to do an H-1B transfer. We prepared the application and included an H-1B recapture argument, to get back the remaining period of H-1B time from her termination of the employment with her previous employer.

Once retained, our office prepared and filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on September 26, 2014 via premium processing service. 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 October 6, 2014.

The USCIS argued that the proffered “Marketing Analyst” position in Petitioner’s business did not qualify as 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 Marketing Analyst is a common position required by similarly sized E-Commerce Merchandising companies.  Also, we provided evidence that Petitioner’s competitors normally require degrees in a specific specialty for closely related positions like that of Marketing 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 re-capture arguments were submitted.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Motion to Reopen (I-290B) / H-1B Visa Petition

PETITIONER: Healthcare Staffing Company

BENEFICIARY: Filipino Pharmacist Intern

Our client is one of the leading healthcare staffing firms in Northeast Ohio, serving the general staffing needs of regional hospitals and clinics. They contacted our office in early March to seek legal assistance from our office for their foreign employee.

The beneficiary is a licensed pharmacist in the Philippines who obtained his Doctor of Pharmacy degree in the Philippines. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is a Pharmacist Intern because he does not have any U.S. Pharmacist license. Still, we showed that this is a “specialty occupation” because the minimum requirement for this position is a Doctor of Pharmacy Degree.

When our client contacted us, the numerical cap of H-1B visas for fiscal year 2014 was not available. Also, since the Petitioner is a staffing firm, their foreign employee will be placed at different hospitals (off-site employment issue).

We told our client that we can argue that they are qualified for some of the exemption provisions for the H-1B cap. We explained that we can argue the nonprofit exemption, as well as cite some CIS memorandums regarding eligibility for H-1B petitions despite off-site employment.

We showed that the main reason for cap-exemption is that the foreign employee will be placed at two hospitals which are non-profit research organizations as defined in 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(19)(iii)(C).

Our office argued that this H-1B petition is exempted from the H-1B numerical limitations (cap-exempt) because the Petitioner will employ the beneficiary to perform job duties at non-profit research organizations (two hospitals) as defined in 8 C.F.R. 214(h)(19)(iii)(C) that directly and predominately furthers the normal, primary, or essential purpose, mission, objectives, or function of the qualifying institution (nonprofit research).

We also argued that these two hospitals are clearly qualified as non-profit research organizations as defined in 8 C.F.R. 214(h)(19)(iii)(C). These two organizations are primarily engaged in basic research and/or applied research. Moreover, the beneficiary’s job duties, which will be performed on-site at qualifying non-profit research organizations, will be similar to those performed by actual employees (Pharmacist Interns) of the two hospitals in the furtherance of the qualifying entities’ mission.

Furthermore, we explained that the Petitioner will comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements of the H-1B non-immigrant classification for the placement of the beneficiary at the two hospitals during the period of employment.  We mentioned that the beneficiary will be paid higher than the prevailing wage for the pharmacist position by the Petitioner, and Petitioner-Employer will maintain an employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary. The Petitioner has the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis as well. We explained that the Petitioner has a sole right to hire, pay, and has the ability to fire the beneficiary as well.

Once retained, our office filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on May 7, 2013 via premium processing.

However, the USCIS California Service Center issued Requests for Evidence (RFE) on May 22, 2014 and requested Petitioner to demonstrate that the prospective places of employment for Beneficiary are truly non-profit organizations under the definition of cap-exempt purposes. Also, the USCIS requested additional information regarding 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 he could not get a license in Ohio due to what we claimed on the initial application as a lack of social security / status.

Once we received the RFE request, our office prepared the response for the RFE and argued that the prospective places of employment for Beneficiary are non-profit medical research organizations and Beneficiary’s work will be similar to Pharmacist Interns in those hospitals.

We submitted the name, address, and contact information of supervisors of each Pharmacy where Beneficiary will be placed.  We also included why he could not take the Board exam (since he does not have a social security number) and did not get a license.We filed this Response to the RFE on May 29, 2014.

Unfortunately, the USCIS denied this case in June 2014. They agreed with our position on the “cap-exempt” issues, however, they did not accept the Ohio Pharmacy Board requirements proof that we submitted showing that they needed a social security number, and that our client did not have one. They instead wanted a deficiency letter.

So our client applied for a license with knowledge that they won’t give it to him, just so that the CIS will be satisfied with the evidence. He indeed got a deficiency letter from Ohio, which we submitted in a Motion to Reopen.

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 him to obtain a social security number which will lead him to get his license.

Our office filed a Form I-290B (Motion to Reopen) and a detailed brief with exhibits to the USCIS California Service Center on July 9, 2014.  Eventually, our client’s Motion to Reopen was granted by the USCIS on September 15, 2014. Subsequently, his H-1B application was approved on October 1, 2014. Now, the beneficiary can work for the Petitioner from October 1, 2014 for one year.

{ 0 comments }

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: 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: 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: 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 }

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 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 petition for their foreign employee.

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.

Without any RFEs, our client’s H-1B petition was approved on July 22, 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 }

CASE: I-485 based on Approved I-140 (EB-3)

 APPLICANT: Korean

 LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client is a chemist from South Korea, who is currently working at a large chemical company which was willing to petition her for a third-preference petition (I-140).  Our client has a Bachelor of Science degree and has worked for this company since she completed her undergraduate program. She has maintained her status as an H-1B visa holder in the United States.  She had an approved I-140 petition which was filed by her current employer and this I-140 petition’s priority date was August 9, 2012.

In March of this year, her priority date became current. She contacted our office and retained us for her I-485 adjustment of status application. Our office filed an I-485 adjustment of status application for our client on March 17, 2014. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices and fingerprint appointment came on time.

Eventually, on May 27, 2014, the USCIS Nebraska Service Center approved our client’s adjustment of status application. She is now a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }