CASE: PERM Labor Certification    
EMPLOYER: Consulting Company in New Jersey
BENEFICIARY: Indian Bioinformaticist
LOCATION: New Jersey

Our client is from India, who is currently working in the United States as a post doctorate researcher under H-1B status. He has a prospective employer who was willing to do an immigration petition for him, second-preference. Our client has a Master’s degree in Science (Plant Genetics). After talking to our client, our firm concluded that his employer can petition her as a Bioinformaticist. Based on our client’s educational, professional and working background, our office determined that he 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 August 7, 2015, the prevailing wage request was filed.  After we obtained foreign degree evaluation report and Prevailing Wage determination, our office filed the job order on October 19, 2015.  On February 3, 2016, we filed PERM.  Eventually, on June 3, 2016, the PERM Labor Certification was approved – an EB2 position for the Indian beneficiary. Now our client can file the I-140 petition.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization)

APPLICANT: Ivorian

LOCATION: Atlanta, GA

Our client contacted us in October 2015 to seek legal representation for his naturalization and citizenship N-400 application. He came to the United States from the Ivory Coast and obtained his green card in December 2010. He retained our office on October 30, 2015.

The N-400 application was filed on December 2, 2015 with all supporting documents. Prior to his citizenship interview, our office prepared him via conference calls. On March 14, 2016, our client appeared at the Atlanta, GA USCIS office for his naturalization interview. Our client answered all questions correctly and passed her naturalization and citizenship interview. Eventually, his application was approved on June 2, 2016. His oath taking is scheduled in which he will become a naturalized U.S. Citizen.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Ukrainian

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States from Ukraine on a B-2 visitor’s visa in September 2015. She married a U.S. Citizen in November 2015 and retained our office on December 16, 2015 for her green card application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on December 21, 2015.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients as well. On June 7, 2016, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our clients as well. Eventually, on the same day of the interview, her green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: J-1 Waiver of Two-Year Foreign Residency Requirement, No Objection Statement 

NATIONALITY: Turkish                                                                                                        

LOCATION: Los Angeles, CA

Our client is from Turkey who came to the U.S. on a J-1 Visa in November 2014 to work as a post-doctoral researcher. She determined that she would like to apply for an adjustment of status based on a possible I-140 National Interest Waiver self-petition. However, she would not be able to adjust her status unless she obtained a waiver of the 2-year foreign residency program.  

She retained our office on January 15, 2016. Thereafter, our office prepared filing a waiver request through a No Objection Statement (NOS) from the Turkish Embassy in the United States. Every country’s Embassy maintains different procedures and policies with regard to the J-1 No Objection Statement waiver.  Our office contacted the Turkish Embassy in D.C. to pursue the waiver for our client.  The Embassy requested several documents including a statement of reason for the waiver and Turkish National ID.

On January 19, 2016, the J-1 Waiver (Form DS-3035) Application was filed to the Department of State.  We also sent a request to the Turkish Embassy to issue a No Objection Statement and recommend this waiver based on the fact that our client is eligible to adjust based on her marriage to her spouse.

Eventually, the Turkish Embassy issued a No Objection Statement for our client, and sent this letter to the State Department’s Waiver Review Division.  On May 24, 2016, the Waiver Review Division issued a favorable recommendation based on the No Objection statement. On June 2, 2016, the USCIS issued an I-612 approval notice for the waiver of our client’s two-year foreign residency requirement.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Filipina

LOCATION: Boston, MA

Our client came to the United States from the Philippines on a B-2 visitor’s visa in June 2014. After her authorized stay period expired, she remained in the United States. She married a U.S. Citizen in May 2015 and retained our office for her green card application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on October 16, 2015.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients via conference calls. On May 5, 2016, our client was interviewed at the Boston, Massachusetts USCIS office. The interview went well, but the USCIS requested our clients to submit more bona fide marital evidence. In response to the RFE, our client submitted more bona fide marital evidence to the USCIS Boston Field Office.  Eventually, on May 31, 2016, her green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-140 (EB-3 Category) / Schedule A / Old Priority Date Retention

EMPLOYER: Nursing / Rehabilitation Center

BENEFICIARY: Filipino Registered Nurse in the Philippines

LOCATION: Des Plaines, IL

Our client’s beneficiary is a registered nurse from the Philippines licensed in the state of Illinois. Currently, he is working at a hospital in the Philippines as a nurse. His prospective employer was willing to petition him for a third-preference employment immigrant visa petition (I-140). Our client also has an approved EB-3 I-140 petition with a priority date of December 2008.

Since he is a registered nurse, he is eligible for “Schedule A” classification. 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 first going to the DOL for a labor certification. 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. The position of Professional Nurses is included in Schedule A.

Also, under 8 CFR 204.5(e):

“Retention of section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) priority date. A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date. A petition revoked under sections 204(e) or 205 of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition. A priority date is not transferable to another alien.”

As mentioned above, our client’s approved I-140 petition was not denied, was actually approved, and was never revoked at any point. Thus, by virtue of 8 CFR 204.5(e), this succeeding I-140 Petition by our client’s prospective employer for our client is entitled to the previous priority date.

Our client has a nursing degree and has several years of related experience. Our firm told him that his potential employer can petition him as a Registered Nurse under the schedule A category. More importantly, since the priority date of his previous I-140 was current, he can eventually apply for his immigrant visa via consular processing. Our office was retained on September 21, 2016 and started on his Prevailing Wage Request.

We filed the I-140 application on December 18, 2015 via regular processing. We included the job offer letter, the notice of filing, his previous I-140 approval notice, and other necessary supporting documents.  Later, we upgraded our client’s I-140 petition to premium processing. Eventually, on June 2, 2016, the I-140 was approved and it retained our client’s old priority date.  

{ 0 comments }

CASE:   Immigrant Visa / I-601A Hardship Waiver of Inadmissibility

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Guatemalan

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client came to the United States from Guatemala in January 2000 without inspection and admission. He married his U.S. citizen wife in 2006. They had two U.S. citizen children together.  His U.S. Citizen wife filed an I-130 petition for him on March 4, 2009. This I-130 petition was approved on June 5, 2009.

Our client cannot file for adjustment of status application due to his ground of inadmissibility. He needed a waiver of inadmissibility to become a green card holder. Moreover, our client was placed in removal proceedings, but with our office’s assistance, his removal proceeding was administratively closed in December 2013 to file the provisional waiver application.

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.

Our client’s I-601A application had a good chance since our client’s U.S. Citizen wife and son suffer from a great degree of medical hardship. In the I-601A brief and supporting documents, our office included extensive medical reports of his wife and his son.  We argued that if he was removed from the United States, extreme hardship to his wife is clearly foreseeable and evident.  His wife has ongoing medical hardships and 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 children. Also, it would be extremely difficult for her to get the same level of therapy and satisfactory access to medical services in Guatemala 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 Guatemala, that our client has good employment in the United States, and that his U.S. citizen child and his wife will face extreme financial and emotional difficulties if he is removed.

On March 11, 2015, we filed the I-601A waiver application which included the brief in support, his wife and son’s extensive medical examination records, and other documents that demonstrated hardship to his wife if he is removed from the United States.

However, on May 13, 2015, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) for our client’s case. USCIS explicitly requested our client to submit more evidence to prove extreme hardship to his U.S. citizen wife if he is forced to relocate in Guatemala. In response to this RFE, our office prepared a response brief along with more medical evidence of our client’s U.S. citizen wife. Our office filed the response to RFE on June 12, 2015.

Eventually, his I-601A waiver was approved on June 22, 2015.

Once his I-601A waiver was approved, he retained our office again for his immigrant visa processing. Our office prepared and filed his immigrant visa application on February 18, 2016. In April 2016, the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala informed our office that they scheduled an immigrant visa interview for our client. Our client went back to Guatemala to appear at his interview on May 3, 2016. On May 3, 2016, our client appeared at his immigrant visa interview at the Embassy, and the Consulate officer approved his immigrant visa.

Our client successfully came back to the United States with an approved immigrant visa and he will get his green card in a mail within two months.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751

APPLICANT: Russian

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client contacted our office in July of 2015 regarding her I-751 application.

She is from Russia and married a U.S. citizen in July 2013. Through her marriage, she obtained a 2-year conditional green card in November of 2013. Our office helped her in the green card process.  Her conditional residency terminated in November 2015.

To comply with immigration requirements, our client and her husband had to file an I-751 Joint Petition to Remove Conditions. She retained our office on August 10, 2015 and our office prepared an I-751 application for our client with supplemental exhibits.

On September 3, 2015, our office filed an I-751 application to the USCIS with multiple affidavits from her friends and family members, joint bank statements, utility bills, joint insurance documents, and photos of our client and her husband 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 a Request for Evidence (RFE) to demonstrate the bona fideness of our client’s marriage with her husband. We filed an extensive Response to RFE to the USCIS with more bona fide marital documents on April 29, 2016.

Eventually, on May 24, 2016, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-140 / EB-11 (Alien of extraordinary ability)

CLIENT: Korean

LOCATION: Seoul, South Korea

Our client contacted us in August 2015 about the possibility of getting an immigrant visa through the EB-11 category. He is a world-renowned Taekwondo coach and is currently working as a coach for one of the best Taekwondo teams in South Korea.  Our client was a member of the Korean National Taekwondo Team as a Taekwondo athlete and one of his students won the gold medal at Universiade. Also, he was the head coach for several national Taekwondo teams in his career. Upon review of his credentials and qualifications, our office determined that he was qualified for the EB-11 category, an alien of extraordinary ability.

According to the INA Section 203(b) states, in pertinent part, that:

1. Priority workers – visas shall first be made available… to qualified immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following sub-paragraphs (A) through (C):

1. Aliens with extraordinary – an alien is described in this sub-paragraph if-

1. The alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletes which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation,
2. The alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability, and
3. The alien’s entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the United States.

USCIS has consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability.  See H.R. 723 101st Cong.2d Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991).  The term “extraordinary ability” refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Id. And 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2).

The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field.  Such acclaim and achievements must be established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major international recognized award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of evidence:

1. Documentation of the alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor;

1. Documentation of the alien’s membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields;

1. Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the alien’s work in the field for which classification is sought.  Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation;

1. Evidence of the alien’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification is sought;

1. Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field;

1. Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media;

1. Evidence of the display of the alien’s work in the field at an artistic exhibitions or showcases;

1. Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation;

1. Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or

1. Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales.

After reviewing our client’s credentials and qualifications, we determined that our client meets 5 of the 10 categories, which is more than the 3 required as an alien of extraordinary ability. Our client has made an original contribution to the sport of Taekwondo; has been awarded numerous national and international coaching awards and his student-players have won numerous national and international competitions including Summer Universiade; has played a critical role for distinguished organizations; has a membership in an organization with distinguished reputation that requires outstanding achievement; and our client’s coaching successes were published in professional and major media.

Our office prepared an 18-page brief for our client’s EB-11 filing. Our client also obtained 7 letters of recommendation from World Taekwondo Federation, Korea Taekwondo Association, former Olympic champions, Taekwondo head coaches from other national teams, etc. Our office also included his coaching records, awards, media coverage, medals, athletic career records, and other materials to show that he is an alien of extraordinary ability in Taekwondo coaching. His EB-11 I-140 application contained 50 exhibits.

Our office filed his I-140 (EB-11) petition to the USCIS Nebraska Service Center via premium processing service on May 9, 2016. On May 24, 2016, the USCIS Nebraska Service Center approved his I-140 self-petition.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Filipina

LOCATION: Buffalo, NY

Our client came to the United States from the Philippines on a B-2 visitor’s visa in December 2010. After her authorized stay period expired, she remained in the United States. She married a U.S. Citizen in August 2014 and retained our office for her green card application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on October 23, 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 January 21, 2015, our client was interviewed at the Buffalo, New York USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu, Esq. from our office also accompanied our clients.

The interview went well; however, the USCIS kept this case for a long time without issuance of any RFE or NOID until February of 2016. On February 6, 2016, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) and asked our client to submit updated evidence of their bona fide marriage. On February 11, 2016, our office filed a Response to RFE with lots of bona fide marital evidence that they provided. Eventually, on May 23, 2016, her green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }