CASE: PERM Labor Certification
EMPLOYER: Korean Church
BENEFICIARY: Korean Pastor
LOCATION: Virginia

Our client is a senior pastor of a Korean church in Virginia, and he currently does his ministry work 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 education, professional and working background, our office determined that he is eligible for EB-2 classification.  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 his 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. Now our client can file the I-140 petition and I-485 Application.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition / I-485 Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Chinese
LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client is a Chinese citizen who came to the U.S. on a B-2 Visitor’s visa in September 2011. She has stayed in the United States since then. Because of her overstay, the Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceeding.

Our client currently resides in Ohio with her current U.S. Citizen husband. They were married in October. After our office was retained, our office filed an I-130 Petition with bona fide marriage evidence on January 15, 2015.  While the I-130 petition was pending, our client appeared at the Cleveland Immigration Court for her master calendar hearing.  Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office represented her at the hearing, did the pleading and sought for adjustment of status relief upon the approval of the I-130 petition.

Her I-130 petition was approved by the USCIS on June 24, 2015 without any interview or RFE request.  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 Cleveland agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice in September 2015.

After her removal proceeding was terminated, our client retained us again for her I-485 adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on November 6, 2015. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permit all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients. On January 26, 2016, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, OH USCIS. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our client.  After the interview, her I-485 application was approved.  Now, our client is a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Immigrant Petition and Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Filipina

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States from the Philippines on a B-2 visitor’s visa in January 2012. She married a U.S. Citizen in February 2014 and retained our office on August 26, 2015 for her green card application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485  of Status Application on October 28, 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 January 26, 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 approv

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Fiancée Visa

PETITIONER: US Citizen in Ohio

BENEFICIARY: Colombian

PETITION FILED: March 4, 2015

PETITION APPROVED: April 2, 2015

K-1 VISA APPROVED: November 25, 2015

Our client, a US Citizen Petitioner, met his Colombian fiancée in Colombia in 2013. They started their relationship, and he visited Colombia. In June 2014, he proposed to her during their trip to Mexico. After his proposal, he retained our firm to file a fiancée petition for her.

After retention, we informed our client about the necessary supporting documents to demonstrate the bona fide nature of their relationship. Our client retained our office on November 5, 2014. We helped him and his fiancée draft letters in support of the fiancé petition, and we filed the petition on March 4, 2015.

On April 2, 2015, less than a month of the filing, the I-129F fiancée petition was approved. On November 25, 2015, our client’s fiancée appeared at the U.S. Embassy in Bogota, Colombia for her K-1 visa interview. The interview went well, and on the same day, the U.S. Embassy issued her K-1 visa.

{ 0 comments }

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

EMPLOYER: Physician’s Office

BENEFICIARY: Hong Kong

LOCATION: Brooklyn, NY

Our client is a family nurse practitioner. His current employer was willing to petition him for a second-preference employment immigrant visa petition (I-140). Since he was a family nurse practitioner, he was 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 Nurse Practitioner is included in Schedule A.

Our client has Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in nursing and is a certified Nurse Practitioner. Our office was retained on September 21, 2015 and we filed the Prevailing Wage Determination immediately.

We filed the I-140 application on January 13, 2016 via premium processing. We included the 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 nurse practitioners must fall under the Schedule A designation.  On January 22, 2016, without any Request for Evidence (RFE), the USCIS Nebraska Service Center approved his EB-2 I-140 petition. Since the priority date for Hong Kong nationals are current for the EB-2 category, he is eligible to file his adjustment of status application now.

{ 0 comments }

CASE:  I-130 / I-485 / I-601 Hardship Waiver of Inadmissibility

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Filipino

LOCATION: Chicago, IL

Our client entered the U.S. in 1993.  Later, he married his U.S. citizen wife and his wife filed an I-130 petition for him and he concurrently filed an I-485 adjustment of status application.  Our client also filed an I-601 wavier application with his adjustment application with the help of his previous immigration lawyer.  He needed to file an I-601 waiver because he was found inadmissible due to his previous immigration law violation.

In 1997, our client went back to his father who was critically ill. After he visited his father, our client re-applied for his visitor’s visa to come back to the United States. However, he claimed himself to be single rather than “married” on his visitor’s visa application in order to get his visitor’s visa easily. He got his visa and came back to the United States. Nonetheless, when he applied for his permanent residency in the United States, the USCIS found that he misrepresented a material fact to get his B-2 visitor’s visa. As a result of his actions, was found to be inadmissible.  (Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible).

As mentioned above, his green card application was denied, as well as the I-601 waiver application. He had multiple tries, but none of them were successful.

Our client contacted our office in November 2011 to pursue the I-130 / 485 and I-601 waiver once again. Our firm thoroughly analyzed why his previous I-601 waiver applications were denied.  Based on his story and surrounding circumstances (hardship to his U.S. citizen wife if he is deported), our office determined that he has a good chance of winning another I-601 application. He retained our office on November 21, 2011.

If someone is found to be inadmissible under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the INA, the INA Section 212(i) provides for a discretionary waiver of the fraud or misrepresentation inadmissibility ground.  To qualify for the waiver, the alien must establish that his or her USC spouse would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission.  INA Section 212(i)(l).  In addition to the equities presented, the USCIS may consider the nature of the fraud or misrepresentation.

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 an unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate.

Our client’s I-601 application had a good chance since our client’s U.S. Citizen wife suffers from physical pains emanating from her surgery and various incidents in the past.  Thus, in the I-601 brief in support, our office included extensive medical reports of his wife. We argued that if he is removed from the United States, extreme hardship to his wife is clearly foreseeable and evident.  His wife needs consistent and continuous physical therapy to help deal with her pain. Also, it would be extremely difficult for her to get the same level of physical therapy and satisfactory access to medical services in the Philippines in case she joins our client there.

In our brief, we also contended that our client and his wife have maintained strong family ties in the United States, that his wife will have extreme difficulty to find the same level of occupation in the Philippines, that his wife will face extreme financial and emotional difficulties if she is removed.

On May 2, 2012, our client and his wife appeared at the interview in the Chicago USCIS Field Office.  Subsequently, one year later, the USCIS requested another interview for our client to appear at the USCIS Chicago Field Office. Our client appeared at the USCIS office on November 5, 2013 and on both occasions, our attorneys accompanied our client. Eventually, his I-601 waiver application was approved on July 10, 2015.

Once his I-601 was approved, our client retained our office again for his adjustment of status application. In late July of 2015, the USCIS notified us that the old I-130 from his wife for him was terminated. Thus, we prepared both the I-130 and I-485 applications again.

Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on July 29, 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 call. On December 7, 2015, our client was interviewed at the Chicago, Illinois USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our clients as well. The interview went well, but the officer informed us that due to the complex and extensive nature of our client’s case, it would take more time for her to adjudicate his applications. Nevertheless, on January 13, 2016, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Adjustment of Status (I-485) / EB-11 (Alien of extraordinary ability)

CLIENT: Indian Plant Biotechnologist

LOCATION: Raleigh, NC

Our client contacted us in March 2014 about the possibility of getting an immigrant visa through the EB-11 category. He is an internationally well-known plant biotechnologist and is currently working as a researcher in Raleigh, NC.  Our client has written numerous internationally recognized scholarly articles in his field of endeavor. 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:

• 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):

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

• 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,
• The alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability, and
• 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. 723 101^st 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:

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

• 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;

• 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;

• 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;

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

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

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

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

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

• 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 3 of the 10 categories. Our client has made an original scientific contribution to the plant genetic engineering and plant biology; has authorship of scholarly articles in his professional field of endeavor; and has participated as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification is sought.

Our office prepared a 24-page brief for our client’s EB-11 filing. Our client also obtained 11 letters of recommendation from internationally well-known scholars in his field of endeavor. Our office also included his record of publications, citations, conference proceedings and invited talks, journal reviewer invitation evidence and other materials to show that he is an alien of extraordinary ability in plant engineering research. His EB-11 I-140 application contained 52 exhibits.

Our office filed his I-140 (EB-11) petition to the USCIS Texas Service Center via regular processing on July 30, 2014.

However, on April 13, 2015, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE). In the RFE, the USCIS claimed that our client only met 2 of the 10 requisite statutory categories of EB-11. In the response brief, our office demonstrated that our client indeed meets 3 of the 10 categories and provided more letters of recommendations, citation record, and his recent research record.  Our office filed the response to RFE on June 18, 2015.  Eventually, on September 15, 2015, the USCIS Texas Service Center approved his I-140 self-petition.

Once his I-140 was approved, our client retained our office again for his family and his I-485 adjustment of status applications. Our office filed an I-485 adjustment of status applications for our client and his family members on October 7, 2015. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices and fingerprint appointment came on time. Eventually, on January 20, 2016, the USCIS Texas Service Center approved our client’s and his family members’ adjustment of status applications. Now, he finally is a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: PERM Labor Certification
EMPLOYER: Taekwondo (Martial Arts) School
BENEFICIARY: Korean
LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client is a former Taekwondo athlete, and currently studies in the United States. He has a Taekwondo school which was willing to petition him for a third-preference petition (I-140).  Our client has a bachelor’s degree in a related field. After talking to our client, our firm concluded that his potential employer can petition him as a Taekwondo Coach.  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 background, our office determined that he is eligible for EB-3 classification for his I-140 petition.  Our client eventually retained us on January 20, 2015.

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 25, 2015, the prevailing wage request was filed.  After we obtained the foreign degree evaluation report, our office filed the job order on April 21, 2015.  On July 15, 2015, we promptly filed PERM.  Eventually, on January 19, 2016, the PERM Labor Certification was approved – an EB3 position for the Korean beneficiary. Now our client can file the I-140 petition.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Family Based Adjustment of Status (F2B) / 245(i)

CLIENT: Indian

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the U.S. from India and applied for his permanent residency three times in the past. His past efforts were unsuccessful and applications were denied due to numerous and complex issues (aging out, unlawful presence, priority dates). His U.S. citizen uncle filed an I-130 petition for his father in February 1989. With this I-130 petition, his parents came to the United States and became green card holders. Although our client was a derivative beneficiary of this I-130 petition, at the time of his adjustment of status, our client’s application was denied due to the “aging out” issue. After the first denial, our client’s father filed an I-130 F2B petition for our client and our client’s employer also filed an EB-2 I-140 petition as well. Nevertheless, our client’s adjustment of status application was denied due to the “unlawful presence” that he incurred unbeknownst to him (he changed his status in the U.S. from B-2 to H-1B, but there was a gap).

Our client contacted us around July of 2015 for consultation and sought legal assistance for his adjustment of status. After consultation, we determined that he is eligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(i) since his uncle’s I-130 petition grand-fathered our client’s case. Our client retained us on July 29, 2015.

Section 245(i) of the INA allows certain foreign nationals to become permanent residents of the United States despite entering without inspection (EWI) or overstaying (if beneficiary of petitions filed not by an immediate relative). Immigrants are barred from adjusting their status if they entered the United States without first being inspected and admitted by a Customs and Border Patrol officer and if they have either failed to maintain lawful status or been unlawfully employed in the country, with certain exceptions. Section 245(i) was first added to law in 1994 to allow certain people who otherwise would not be eligible to adjust their status to be able to do so upon payment of a $1,000 fine.

Four years later, on January 14, 1998, Congress phased Section 245(i) out of law. Immigrants and their families who had already begun the process of changing their status under Section 245(i) by January 14, 1998 were grandfathered into the section’s benefits. However, this left thousands of otherwise qualified persons who had not begun the process unable to adjust status in the United States. They could not return to their countries to begin the legal process of obtaining their permanent residency in the United States also without being subject to either a three- or a 10-year bar upon returning to the United States.

On December 21, 2000, Congress extended the qualifying date for Section 245(i) benefits to April 30, 2001. This law allowed immigrants who had labor certifications or visa petitions filed on their behalf between 1998 and April 30, 2001, to qualify for adjustment of status. Those who were beneficiaries of petitions filed prior to January 14, 1998 could still adjust despite an EWI record, and those people do not have to meet the December 2000 physical presence requirement.

As mentioned above, our client, despite “aging-out” and despite not having physical presence in December 2000, is eligible to adjust status based on the approved I-130 F2b Petition filed by his father because he is INA 245(i) eligible as the “beneficiary” of an I-130 Petition filed by his uncle to his father in February 1989. We also argued that our client was specifically listed as a derivative beneficiary of this I-130.  Therefore, he is grandfathered under 245(i) and even though he “aged-out”, he remains a beneficiary for purposes of 245(i). Moreover, since the I-130 Petition was filed in February, 1989, which is before January 14, 1998, he does not need to prove physical presence in December 2000.

On August 6, 2015, our office filed his I-485 adjustment of status application under the 245(i) category for our client.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices and fingerprint appointment all came on time.  Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our client as well. On January 7, 2016, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS office.  Attorney JP Sarmiento from our office accompanied our client. Eventually, on January 13, 2016, our client’s I-485 adjustment of status application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751 / Response to RFE

APPLICANT: Filipina

LOCATION: Miami, FL

Our client contacted our office in November 2015 regarding a Response to RFE for her I-751 application filing. She is from the Philippines and got her 2-year conditional green card through her marriage to her U.S. citizen husband.  She obtained a 2-year conditional green card in 2013, and her conditional residency terminated in 2015.

To comply with immigration requirements, our client and her husband filed an I-751 Joint Petition to Remove Conditions before its expiration date. However, she did not have an attorney back then, and did not submit sufficient evidence to prove the bona fideness of her marriage to her U.S. citizen husband. As a result of that, on November 13, 2015, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) for our client’s I-751 filing.

After consulting, she retained our office on November 19, 2015.

We reviewed the CIS’ RFE letter and prepared our response.  On December 15, 2015, our office filed the Response to RFE to the USCIS with multiple affidavits from her friends and family members, joint bank statements, utility bills, credit card statements, joint tax records, joint vehicle title, insurance policies, and photos of our client and her husband to demonstrate the bona fideness of their marriage.

After that, there was no interview request for our client’s I-751 application. Instead, on January 11, 2016, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application and our client received her 10-year green card which removed the condition.

{ 0 comments }