CASE: EB-2 Green Card Approval Based on Approved I-140 (EB-2)    
EMPLOYER: Korean Church
BENEFICIARY: Korean Pastor
LOCATION: Virginia

Our client is a senior pastor of a Korean church in Virginia, who currently does his ministry at this church under an H-1B status.  This church was willing to petition him for a second-preference petition (I-140).  Our client has a master’s degree in Divinity. After talking to our client, our firm concluded that his employer can petition him as a Pastor.  Second preference petitions for Koreans are current, which means that if a PERM Labor Certification for a second preference position gets approved, the I-140 and I-485 could be filed simultaneously. Based on our client’s educational, professional and working backgrounds, our office determined that he is clearly eligible for EB-2 classification for his I-140 petition.  Our client eventually retained us on December 15, 2014.

Prior to filing PERM, our firm prepared the prevailing wage request, job order, advertisements, internal job posting, recruitment report, and all other steps which are important pre-PERM filing. Take note that PERM could be filed at least 60 days from the job posting date or 30 days from the last ad. On March 4, 2015, the prevailing wage request was filed.  After we obtained foreign degree evaluation report, our office filed the job order on May 4, 2015.  On July 29, 2015, we promptly filed PERM.  Eventually, on January 28, 2016, the PERM Labor Certification was approved – an EB2 position for the Korean beneficiary.

We then proceeded with the I-140 Petition filing. We submitted the “ability to pay” letter for the I-140 petition application. We included the job offer letter, employer’s financial records, and other necessary supporting documents. The I-140 Petition was filed on June 14, 2016 via premium processing service. However, the USCIS issued Request for Evidence (RFE) on June 29, 2016 and requested the Petitioner’s audited balance sheet to demonstrate whether Petitioner has sufficient net current asset to pay proffered wage of beneficiary. On September 8, 2016, our office filed the Response to RFE to USCIS along with Petitioner’s 2015 audited balance sheet. Eventually, on September 16, 2016, the I-140 EB-2 Petition for our Korean client was approved.

Once the I-140 petition was approved, our client retained our office again for his I-485 adjustment of status application. Our office filed an I-485 adjustment of status application for our client on November 28, 2016. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices and fingerprint appointment came on time.

Eventually, on March 9, 2017, the USCIS Texas Service Center approved our client’s adjustment of status application. Now, he finally is a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751

APPLICANT: Jamaican

LOCATION: Texas

Our client contacted our office in November of 2015 regarding his I-751 application.

He is from Jamaica and he married a U.S. citizen in August 2012. Through his marriage, he obtained a 2-year conditional green card in February of 2014. Our office helped him get his 2-year green card.  His conditional residency terminated in February 2016.

To comply with immigration requirements, our client and his wife had to file an I-751 Joint Petition to Remove Conditions. He retained our office on November 2015 and our office prepared an I-751 application for our client with other supplemental exhibits.

On November 20, 2015, our office filed an I-751 application to the USCIS with multiple affidavits from his friends and family members, a copy of birth certificate of their child, joint bank statements, utility bills, joint leasing documents, and photos of our client and his wife to demonstrate the bona fideness of their marriage.

Once the application was filed, the fingerprint notice was issued two weeks later. However, the USCIS issued the Request for Evidence (RFE) to demonstrate the bona fideness of our client’s marriage with his wife. We filed an extensive Response to RFE to the USCIS with more bona fide marital documents on February 8, 2017. Eventually, on February 25, 2017, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application.

{ 0 comments }

CASE:   I-601A Hardship Waiver of Inadmissibility

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Filipino

LOCATION: California

Our client came to the United States from the Philippines in 2002 on a D-1 visa (Crewman). He remained in the United States after his entry in 2002. He married his U.S. citizen wife in 2009. His U.S. Citizen wife filed an I-130 petition for him in November 2009. This I-130 petition was approved on April 13, 2010.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On October 13, 2016, we filed the I-601A waiver application which included the brief in support, and documents that demonstrated hardship to his wife if he is removed from the United States. Eventually, his I-601A waiver was approved on February 21, 2017. Now, he can file packet 3 and 4 here in the United States, and would go to the Philippines shortly to get his immigrant visa.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-140 (EB-2 Category) / Schedule A / Premium Processing

EMPLOYER: Nursing Care Facility

BENEFICIARY: Filipina

LOCATION: Houston, Texas

Our client is in the United States on an H-4 visa. Her prospective employer-sponsor was willing to petition her for a second-preference employment immigrant visa petition (I-140). Since she has a registered nurse license and the proffered position for her is a nurse manager at the nursing care facility, the petitioner wanted to try going for a “Schedule A” classification. They also wanted to do EB2 (requiring at least a Masters degree or Bachelors degree + 5 yrs experience).

The Department of Labor (DOL) maintains a schedule of occupations in its regulations, Schedule A included, for which the individual permanent labor certification procedure is not required. The schedule of pre-certified occupations is referred to as Schedule A, and is included in DOL regulations at 20 CFR 656.10. Based on an occupation’s inclusion on Schedule A, an employer may file an immigrant visa petition (I-140) directly with the (USCIS) without having to file a Labor Certification with the Department of Labor. Usually, prior to filing I-140 petitions (EB-2 or EB-3 category), the employer must file a Labor Certification to the Department of Labor. However, for Schedule A cases, the employer does not have to go through the labor certification process. We argued that the position of Health Services Manager should be classified under Schedule A. We argued that it falls under the broad spectrum of “professional nurse” occupations. We also argued that the job description has excerpts that fall under “professional nurse” and that the description justifies the requirements also of Bachelor’s degree in nursing and five years of related experiences.

Our client has a Bachelor’s degree in nursing and 5 years of experience as a staff nurse. She also has a registered nursing license in the state of Texas. Our office was retained and we started on the Prevailing Wage Determination filing and other related matters.

Once the prevailing wage was determined, we filed the I-140 application on February 22, 2017 via premium processing. We included a job offer letter, the notice of filing, employment letter, and other necessary supporting documents. In our cover brief, we included the “ability to pay” argument and why the nurse manager position falls under a Schedule A and EB2 designation.

Eventually, on March 8, 2017, the USCIS Texas Service Center approved her EB-2 I-140 petition. Now, with the approved EB-2 I-140 petition (priority date for EB2 Philippines nationals is current), she can file an adjustment of status application.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-485 Adjustment of Status based on Approved I-140 (EB-2)

APPLICANT: Kenyan Non-Profit Housewarming Project Manager

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client is currently working as a Non-Profit Housewarming Project Manager whose current employer was willing to petition him for a second-preference petition (I-140).  Our client has a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in a related field and work experience. He has been working for his current employer under an OPT status. Based on our client’s education, professional and work background, our office determined that he is clearly eligible for EB-2 classification for his I-140 petition.  Our client eventually retained us.

Prior to filing PERM, our firm prepared the prevailing wage request, job order, advertisements, internal job posting, recruitment report, and all other steps which are important pre-PERM filing. Take note that the PERM application could be filed at least 60 days from the job posting date or 30 days from the last ad. On April 2, 2015, the prevailing wage request was filed.  Once we received the Prevailing Wage determination, our office filed the job order on August 20, 2015.  On November 20, 2015, we promptly filed PERM.

However, on May 2, 2016, the Department of Labor issued a request for audit. The DOL requested documents from Petitioner to determine whether the recruitment process was done properly. In response to the Audit request, our office prepared the response to Audit brief along with Employer’s declaration, notice of filing, and recruitment documentation on May 11, 2016.  

Eventually, on July 18, 2016, the PERM Labor Certification was approved – an EB2 position for the Kenyan beneficiary. We then proceeded with the I-140 Petition filing. We submitted the “ability to pay” letter for the I-140 petition application. We included the job offer letter, employer’s tax records, and other necessary supporting documents. The I-140 Petition was filed on July 28, 2016 via premium processing service. On August 8, 2016, the I-140 EB-2 Petition for our Kenyan client was approved without any Request for Evidence (RFE).

Our office filed his I-485 application along with his I-140 petition concurrently. On March 1, 2017, the USCIS approved his I-485 application as well. Now, he is a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-485 Adjustment of Status based on Approved I-140 (EB-2)
EMPLOYER: Dental Group in Cleveland, OH
BENEFICIARY: Nepali Dentist

Our client is from Nepal, who is currently working in the United States as an associate dentist under an F-1 (OPT) status. Her current employer was willing to do an immigration petition for her, second-preference. Our client has a Doctor of Dental Surgery degree in the United States. After talking to our client, our firm concluded that her employer can petition her as an associate dentist. Based on our client’s education, professional and work background, our office determined that she is clearly eligible for EB-2 classification.

Prior to filing PERM, our firm prepared the prevailing wage request, job order, advertisements, internal job posting, recruitment report, and all other steps which are important pre-PERM filing. Take note that PERM could be filed at least 60 days from the job posting date or 30 days from the last ad. On September 15, 2015, the prevailing wage request was filed.  After we obtained Prevailing Wage determination, our office filed the job order on November 30, 2015.  On February 22, 2016, we promptly filed PERM.  Eventually, on June 14, 2016, the PERM Labor Certification was approved – an EB2 position for the Nepalese beneficiary.

We then proceeded with the I-140 Petition filing. We submitted the “ability to pay” letter for the I-140 petition application. We included the job offer letter, employer’s tax records, and other necessary supporting documents. The I-140 Petition was filed on July 11, 2016 via premium processing service. Eventually, on July 21, 2016, the I-140 EB-2 Petition for our Nepalese client was approved without any Request for Evidence (RFE).

Our office filed his I-485 application along with his I-140 petition concurrently. However, on January 23, 2017, the USCIS Nebraska Service Center issued Request for Evidence (RFE) and requested our client to submit the updated employment letter. Our office filed the response to RFE on February 15, 2017. On March 3, 2017, the USCIS approved her I-485 application as well. Now, she is a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition

CLIENT: Cameroonian
LOCATION: Atlanta, GA (USCIS) / Memphis, TN (EOIR)

Our Cameroonian client came to the United States in December 1999 on an F-1 student visa. In July 2001, he filed an asylum application to the USCIS, was interviewed by the USCIS, and later his case was referred to the Immigration Court.  Thereafter, a Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceedings. After he got the Notice to Appear, he appeared at his initial master calendar hearing at the Memphis Immigration Court with his previous attorney.

His removal proceedings were continued, but he could not appear at his individual hearing in April 2003 due to hospitalization.  Thus, the Court found him removable and ordered him removed in absentia.  

Later, in April 2011, he filed a Motion to Reopen with assistance from his previous immigration counsel.  However, this Motion to Reopen was denied by the Court in July 2011.  Thereafter, he contacted our office to determine whether he can file a Motion to Reopen again.  After the consultation, we explained him that the only way the Court can reopen his case is based on changed country conditions in Cameroon.  It is because our client’s second Motion to Reopen can be considered untimely filed and numerically barred.  After the explanation, our client decided to retain our office and retained us on November 22, 2011 for Motion to Reopen based on changed country conditions.

Under immigration law, if an applicant seeks to make an asylum claim and a final order of removal has been entered and the ninety-day filing deadline for motions to reopen has passed, the BIA and the majority of Circuit Courts have found that the applicant may only file the asylum application through a motion to reopen and only under the “changed country conditions” provision of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i).  Thus, our office prepared the Motion to Reopen based on the changed country conditions in Cameroon.

On March 6, 2012, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Memphis Immigration Court. With 15-pages brief, we included a detailed affidavit regarding his involvement in political activist group in Cameroon, several affidavits from his fellow members who confirmed his involvement with the organization.  We claimed that the number of arrests and detentions of his political group members has recently escalated since his original removal hearing in 2003 resulting in changed country conditions.  We also attached a letter from a human rights officer in which he states that he knew our client’s political involvement in Cameroon. Moreover, other supporting documents such as newspaper articles and country report of Cameroon were submitted (24 exhibits).  On March 29, 2012, the DHS filed a Response in Opposition to our Motion.  Nevertheless, on May 2, 2012, the Memphis Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case.  

Once his case is reopened, he retained our office again. Our attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu appeared at his master calendar hearing via telephonic appearance and his individual hearing was scheduled on September 29, 2014 at the Memphis Immigration Court.

Our client was persecuted and harmed in Cameroon based on his political opinion and movement.  Our client was scared to go back home to Cameroon, fearing that he will be persecuted based on his political opinion. Moreover, our client’s late father and his uncle were mistreated and harmed in Cameroon due to their political opinion as well.

We helped him file his asylum application and represented him in immigration court hearings. We also asked him to provide supporting documents corroborating his claim, some of which were a letter from his family, colleagues and friends in Cameroon. Our firm also did some research on articles related to his claim, and the type of persecution he will experience in Cameroon if sent back.

Our client’s individual hearing was scheduled on September 29, 2014 at the Memphis Immigration Court. Attorney Sung Hee Yu from our firm prepared him extensively. He also represented our client at his Individual Hearing at the Memphis Immigration Court.

Prior to the hearing, Immigration Judge held a pre-trial conference with Attorney Yu and the DHS counsel. During the pre-trial conference, and all of the possible issues were examined. At the conclusion of the conference, withholding of removal was granted. After the hearing, the Immigration Judge granted Withholding of Removal for our client based on his persecution in Cameroon.

In December 2014, our client married his current U.S. citizen wife. He retained our office again for the I-130 petition. Once we were retained, our office prepared and filed the I-130 petition for our client and filed it to USCIS on August 14, 2015.

Our client’s I-130 interview was scheduled on October 3, 2016 at Atlanta USCIS Field Office.  Prior to the interview, our office thoroughly prepared our client and his wife for the interview via conference calls. Attorney Yu also accompanied them for their interview. The interview went well, and the I-130 petition was eventually approved on October 11, 2016.

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 Memphis, TN agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice on February 24, 2017.  Now, he can file his I-485 adjustment of status application to USCIS to obtain his green card.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-140 (EB-3)    
EMPLOYER: Clothing Company in Cleveland, OH
BENEFICIARY: Korean Fashion Design / Display Manager

Our client is from South Korea, who is currently in H-4 status. Her prospective employer was willing to do an immigration petition for her, third-preference. Our client has a Bachelor of Fashion Design Degree and used to work as a fashion designer in South Korea. After talking to our client, our firm concluded that her prospective employer can petition her as a Fashion Design and Display Manager. Based on our client’s educational, professional and working backgrounds, our office determined that she is clearly eligible for EB-3 classification.

Prior to filing PERM, our firm prepared the prevailing wage request, job order, advertisements, internal job posting, recruitment report, and all other steps which are important pre-PERM filing. Take note that PERM could be filed at least 60 days from the job posting date or 30 days from the last ad. On February 5, 2016, the prevailing wage request was filed.  After we obtained Prevailing Wage determination, our office filed the job order on May 5, 2016.  On July 15, 2016, we promptly filed PERM.  Eventually, on October 5, 2016, the PERM Labor Certification was approved – an EB3 position for the Korean beneficiary.

We then proceeded with the I-140 Petition filing. We submitted a cover brief with the “ability to pay” argument for the I-140 petition application. We included the job offer letter, employer’s tax records, and other necessary supporting documents. The I-140 Petition was filed on November 9, 2016. Eventually, on February 28, 2017, the I-140 EB-3 Petition for our Korean client was approved. Our client can file her I-485 adjustment application.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

NATIONALITY: Filipina                                                                                                        

LOCATION: Birmingham, AL

Our client is from the Philippines who came to the U.S. on an H-1B visa in October 2009. Since then, she has remained in the United States and worked as a high school teacher in Birmingham, AL.  In July 2016, our client married her current U.S. citizen husband.  She retained our office in July 2016 for her green card application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on July 22, 2016.  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 February 27, 2017, our client was interviewed at the Atlanta, Georgia USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office also accompanied our clients as well. Eventually, on the same day of the interview, her green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Asylum in Immigration Court

CLIENT: Jamaican

LOCATION: New Orleans Immigration Court

Our Jamaican client came to the United States on a B-2 visa in September 2013.  He was persecuted in Jamaica, and was scared to go back home to Jamaica, fearing that he will be persecuted on account of his social group. Thus, within one year of his entry, he filed an asylum application (Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and relief under the CAT) to the USCIS with our office’s legal assistance.  He was interviewed at the Asylum Office in Lyndhurst, NJ in May 2014, but his case was referred to an immigration judge. The Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceedings.  

After the case was referred to the Immigration Court, our client retained our office again. His court case originated at the Philadelphia Immigration Court, but after he moved to Louisiana, the venue was changed to the New Orleans Immigration Court.

We helped him prepare his asylum application, going over several drafts until his claim was as detailed as possible. Names, addresses, dates, and all possible issues relevant to his asylum claim were addressed. We also asked him to provide supporting documents corroborating his claim, some of which were letters from Jamaica and friends in the U.S. who were part of his social group. Our firm also did some research on articles pertaining to his particular claim, and the type of persecution that members of his social group suffer in Jamaica.

Our client’s individual hearing was scheduled on February 6, 2017, at the New Orleans Immigration Court. Partner and Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu represented our client at the hearing. During the hearing, our client testified credibly as to his past persecution in Jamaica and likelihood of future persecution. On February 24, 2017, the Immigration Judge issued a written decision and granted asylum relief for our client. He is now an asylee who will get his work permit soon and will be eligible to apply for permanent residency in one year.

{ 0 comments }