CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status.
NATIONALITY: Ukrainian
LOCATION: Indianapolis, IN

Our client came to the United States with J-2 visa when he was a child. Later, he changed his J-2 visa to F-1 when he started his undergraduate program. As explained in a previous success story, our office worked on our client’s J-2 visa waiver through the Interested Government Agency (IGA) route.  Eventually, the CIS issued an I-612 approval notice for our client’s waiver of the two-year foreign residency requirement in 2012. Our office also helped him in  his H-1B visa petition in 2012.

In July 2014, our client married his U.S. citizen wife.  He retained us again and sought legal assistance for his I-485 adjustment of status application. Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and the I-485 adjustment of status application on October 6, 2014. 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 December 29, 2014, our client was interviewed at the Indianapolis USCIS office. On the same day, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-130 Approval / Velarde Hearing in Immigration Court

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, 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 are 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. Attorney JP Sarmiento accompanied them at the interview. The interview went well, and the USCIS approved the I-130 petition for our client on the same day. With the approved I-130 petition, we can terminate his removal proceedings with the cooperation with New Orleans DHS office.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Adjustment of Status / 245(i)

CLIENT: Filipina

LOCATION: Anchorage, Alaska

Our Filipina client came to the U.S. as a crewman in 2002. Her last entry to the United States on a crewman’s landing permit was in November 2002. She has remained in the United States, and she currently resides in Alaska.

Our client contacted us around June of 2014 for consultation and sought legal assistance for her adjustment of status. After consultation, we determined that she is eligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(i) with the approved I-130 petition which was filed by her current U.S. citizen husband. Our client retained us on June 25, 2014.

Prior to retaining our firm, our client was a derivative beneficiary of an I-140 petition for her mother. When the I-140 was filed, our client was only 13 years old which made her a derivative beneficiary. Accordingly, she could be a beneficiary under the INA Section 245(i).

Section 245(i) of the INA allows certain foreign nationals to become permanent residents of the United States despite entering without inspection (EWI), overstaying, and entering on a C1/D crewman / seaman among others. 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 or if they entered on a C1/D (crewman / seaman), 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 and made amendments. 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.

On July 11, 2014, our office filed her I-485 adjustment of status applications under the 245(i) category for our client with the approved I-130 petition.  However, the USCIS denied our client’s application on August 15, 2014 and claimed that our client was restricted from adjustment of status by virtue of INA Section 245(a) and (c). They were wrong and the denial notice did not mention the fact that our client was ineligible for 245(i). Our client was eligible.

Our office immediately filed a Motion to Reopen (Form I-290B) on August 26, 2014 to the USCIS. In our brief in support, our office argued that our client is the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition filed before January 14, 1998, by virtue of the I-140 filed for her mother in 1989 including her as a derivative when she was only 13 years old. The Bach memorandum specifies that even if she is aged out, our client is still considered a beneficiary for purposes of adjudication under INA section 245(i). We also argued that since the petition was filed before January 14, 1998 that our client does not need to prove physical presence in the United States on December 21, 2000.  Eventually, the USCIS approved our client’s I-485 adjustment of status application on December 3, 2014. After a long wait, our client is finally a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

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

CLIENT: US Citizen Petitioner; Filipino Beneficiary in the Philippines

LOCATION: Petitioner: Cleveland OH; Beneficiary: Manila, Philippines

Our client is a U.S. citizen who married his Filipina girlfriend in the Philippines in 2013.  He had his marriage ceremony with his wife in the Philippines in June 2013.  When he came back to the United States, he wanted to bring his wife over here.

He contacted our office in late November 2013 and retained our office to help bring his wife to the States. Since the client’s wife was not in the United States, and their marriage occurred in the Philippines, our office filed an I-130 first on December 17, 2013.

After the I-130 was filed, everything went smoothly and the receipt notices came on time. The I-130 Petition was approved by the USCIS on February 13, 2014.

After the I-130 approval, we filed the immigrant visa packets to the National Visa Center on August 22, 2014, who in turn forwarded the client’s materials to the U.S. Embassy in Manila, Philippines. An interview notice was set for the client at the U.S. Embassy in Manila. On December 4, 2014, our client’s wife appeared at the U.S. Embassy in Manila, The interview went well, and on the same day, the U.S. Embassy in Manila, Philippines approved and issued her immigrant visa.

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Filipino

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our Filipino client came to the United States on an E-2 investment visa in November 2010. Later, he married a U.S. Citizen in July 2013. His U.S. citizen wife filed an I-130 petition and our client filed adjustment of status application in 2013, but his applications were denied due to an issue regarding the petitioner’s previous divorce decree.

Our client retained our office on February 14, 2014 for the re-filing of his petition and adjustment of status application. We made sure we obtained the proper divorce decree from Hawaii.

Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on February 21, 2014.  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 16, 2014, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, OH USCIS office.  Attorney JP Sarmiento from our office also accompanied our client as well. The interview was took time, but our clients answered the questions well and demonstrated the bona fide nature of their marital life. Eventually, on November 19, 2014, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

Case: I-130/I-485

Potential Issue: Response to Notice of Intent to Deny

Client: Nigerian

Location: Fairfax, VA

Our client entered the United States in May 2008 from Nigeria with a B-2 visitor visa.  Later, she married her U.S. citizen husband in April 2012. She retained our office on February 12, 2013 for her adjustment of status application.

Our office prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on March 15, 2013.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our client via conference calls for their USCIS adjustment of status interview.

On June 14, 2013, our client and her husband appeared at the Fairfax, VA USCIS office for her adjustment interview. The interview was extensive, and at the end of the interview, the USCIS officer scheduled another interview for them. The officer was suspicious regarding the bona fideness of our client’s marriage.

On September 5, 2013, Attorney JP Sarmiento accompanied our client and her husband again at the Fairfax, VA USCIS office her second interview. The interview took more than one hour and the officer thoroughly asked our client and her husband about the bona fide nature of the marriage and some martial issues that the officer had suspicions on.

On April 26, 2014, the USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID).  The NOID claimed that there was substantial and probative evidence that the marital union between the Petitioner and Beneficiary is not bona fide.  Moreover, the NOID points out that the submitted documentation of Petitioner and Beneficiary does not establish a bona fide nature of their marriage. Lastly, the NOID claimed that there were no third party affidavits for their marital relationship.

In response to the USCIS’s NOID, our office helped our clients draft an extensive affidavit. Multiple supporting documents and an affidavit from our client were all included as well as letters from their friends and neighbors, joint utility bills, joint insurance, and several pictures of our client and his wife in several occasions with different people.  Several legal authorities were cited based on particular issues discussed, and on May 22, 2014, we filed the Response to NOID prior to the 30-day deadline.

Finally, on November 7, 2014, the USCIS approved our client’s case. Both the I-130 Petition and I-485 Green Card Application were approved. Our client is now a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Petition and Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Filipino

LOCATION: Houston, TX

Our Filipino client came to the United States on a H-4 visa in May 2004. Later, he changed his status to H-1B. He married his U.S. citizen wife in September 2013 when his spouse was a Lawful Permanent Resident. She became a naturalized U.S. Citizen in June 2014. Once she was naturalized, our client retained our office on August 4, 2014 for his adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on August 22, 2014.  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 calls. On November 12, 2014, our client was interviewed at the Houston, TX USCIS. On the same day, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Pakistani

LOCATION: New York, NY

Our Pakistani client came to the United States on a B-2 visitor visa in May 2014. He married his U.S. citizen wife in December 2011 in Pakistan when his spouse was a Lawful Permanent Resident. She became a naturalized U.S. Citizen in June 2014. Once she was naturalized, our client retained our office on June 9, 2014 for his adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on June 18, 2014.  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 calls. On November 7, 2014, our client was interviewed at the New York City USCIS. On the same day, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Adjustment of Status (I-485) / Motion to Reopen and Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition

CLIENT: Indonesian
LOCATION: Boston, MA

Our client is from Indonesia who came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitor’s visa in March 2004. After she entered to the United States, she has remained in the United States even after her authorized stay expired.

Later, she filed for asylum and withholding of removal in April 2006, but the Immigration Judge in San Francisco, CA denied all applications for relief. She filed an appeal to the BIA, but in June 2007, the Board affirmed the Immigration Judge’s findings and dismissed the appeal. She then proceeded to appeal her case in Federal Circuit Court, was denied, and she even filed a Motion to Reopen which was denied in January 2013.

Our client remained in the United States despite the final order of removal.

She then married her current U.S. citizen husband in August 2012. Her husband filed an I-130 petition in November 2012, which was subsequently approved by the USCIS in November 2013.

Our client and her husband were wondering whether she has any viable option for her immigration status.  After careful review, our office determined that we can file a Request to Joint in a Motion to Reopen based on the I-130 approval and Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum. Our client retained our office on December 4, 2013.

Once retained, our office prepared and filed a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen and Terminate to the San Francisco DHS office on February 21, 2014. Our office prepared an extensive brief along with several supporting documents to request a favorable exercise of DHS’s discretion on this case.

We argued that DHS should consider the following factors as set forth in Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum: (1) whether adjustment of status was available at the prior hearing; (2) whether the alien is statutorily eligible for adjustment of status; and (3) whether the alien merits a favorable exercise of discretion. Bo Cooper, Motions to Reopen for Consideration of Adjustment of Status (May 17, 2001). In considering these factors, as delineated in William J. Howard’s October 24, 2005, Memorandum, “Where a motion to reopen for adjustment of status… is filed on behalf of an alien with substantial equities, no serious criminal or immigration violations, and who is legally eligible to be granted relief except that the motion is beyond the 90-day limitation contained in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23, strongly consider exercising prosecutorial discretion and join in this motion to reopen to permit the alien to pursue such relief to the immigration court.” William J. Howard, Prosecutorial Discretion (October 24, 2005).

Our office argued that if our client’s case is reopened, she will be prima facie eligible to adjust her status. Our client has been living in the United States since 2004, has no criminal record, and has an approved I-130 petition based on the marriage to U.S citizen spouse.

As a result, the DHS office agreed to join in our Motion to Reopen and Terminate on April 21, 2014. The DHS filed the joint motion to the San Francisco Immigration Court, and our client case was reopened and terminated by the San Francisco Immigration Court on July 8, 2014.

Once her case was terminated she retained our office again for her I-485 adjustment of status application. Our firm prepared and filed the Adjustment of Status Application and the Employment Authorization Document application on July 22, 2014.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time.

Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our client via conference call. On November 3, 2014, our client was interviewed at the Boston, MA USCIS.  The interview went well, and on the same day, her green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Russian

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our Russian client came to the United States on a F-1 student visa to pursue her ESL Program in September 2011. She married a U.S. Citizen in June 2013 and retained our office on March 27, 2014 for her green card application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on April 21, 2014.  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 October 3, 2014, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, OH USCIS office.  Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our clients as well. On the same day, her green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }