CASE:  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 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 as a 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, he was found to be inadmissible to the United States pursuant to Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the INA.  (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 an 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 had a good chance to win 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, 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 has a good chance since our client’s U.S. Citizen wife suffers from physical pains emanating from her surgery and some incidents in the past.  Thus, in 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 an interview at 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. 

{ 0 comments }

CASE: F-1 Reinstatement / Response to RFE

CLIENT: Beninese

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client has been on F-1 status for many years and has studied in the United States. However, in 2011, he was arrested by an immigration officer while at a bus station to New York and was told that his F-1 status was terminated. Our client went back to his home country for the Spring Semester of 2010 due to his family’s medical emergency. Prior to his departur from the U.S., he consulted with the school’s international student officer and was advised that he could go and come back without any problem. Nevertheless, unbeknownst to him, his F-1 status was terminated by the school.

Our client immediately talked to his school’s ISO officer right after his “arrest” incident. The school’s ISO apologized to our client and told him that they will take care of the mistake. Our client went with his schooling and never encountered the issue again for the next few years. He even graduated his school and applied for the OPT which was later approved by the USCIS.

In 2014, our client decided to take another program, but he was informed by the International Student Officer that his “terminated F-1” status was never resolved, and that he would not be eligible for further studies until he gets his F-1 status reinstated.  Our client immediately prepared necessary documents for the reinstatement, and filed an F-1 reinstatement request to the USCIS. However, on May 11, 2015, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence. After the issuance of RFE, our client contacted our office and retained us on May 21, 2015.

Once retained, we helped our client obtain supporting documents for the F-1 reinstatement and prepared a response brief for the RFE. We fully explained why he had to go back to Benin, the circumstance of his F-1 termination, his financial ability to pursue his studies in the U.S., and reasons for his studies. On June 3, 2015, we filed the Response to RFE for his F-1 reinstatement with an extensive response brief and numerous supporting documents.

On June 27, 2015, the F-1 reinstatement was approved. Our client’s F-1 student is now valid and he now has retained valid non-immigrant status.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: L-1A petition / I-129

PETITIONER: Adventure Travel Company in the Philippines

BENEFICIARY: Filipino President/CEO in the Philippines

Our client is an adventure travel company in the Philippines.  They contacted our office in the middle of September 2014 to seek legal assistance for a possible L-1A “new office” petition to send its executive to the U.S. in order to setup a new office.

The L-1A nonimmigrant classification enables a U.S. employer to transfer an executive or manager from one of its affiliated foreign offices to one of its offices in the United States.  This classification also enables a foreign company which does not yet have an affiliated U.S. office to send an executive or manager to the United States with the purpose of establishing one.

For foreign employers seeking to send an employee to the United States as an executive or manager to establish a new office, the employer must also show that:

• The employer has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office;
• The employee has been employed as an executive or manager for one continuous year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition; and
• The intended U.S. office will support an executive or managerial position within one year of the approval of the petition.

The beneficiary has been the President of the parent company since 2010. Physical premises, articles of incorporation, and other legal matters were established for the “new office” as well. Our office was retained to do an L-1A petition with the purpose of transferring Beneficiary to the United States to head operations and be President of the new business (U.S. subsidiary).

Upon retention, our office prepared and eventually filed the L-1A visa petition with various supporting documents. The application included a detailed employer support letter, documentation to demonstrate the qualifying corporate relationship between the parent company in the Philippines and the U.S., financial documents, past experience documents, business plan, and physical premises evidence among others. We filed the L-1A petition on October 14, 2014.

The USCIS eventually sent a Request for Evidence and requested Petitioner to submit additional evidence to establish ownership and control of the U.S. Entity, physical premises of the U.S. company, and Beneficiary’s abroad employment. The company is in the “service” industry hence we had to argue and justify the “virtual” office arrangement of the office. In response to the RFE, we gathered supporting documents to address all issued and filed the Response to RFE on January 22, 2015.

Eventually, our client’s L-1A application was approved on February 10, 2015. Thereafter, our office filed I-824 follow-to-join application on March 24, 2015 to enable Beneficiary and his wife to come to the United States under the L visa as well. The I-824 petition was approved on April 28, 2015. Eventually, the visa applications were sent and our clients were interviewed. Eventually, our clients  L visas were approved at the U.S. Embassy in Manila.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-824 based on approved I-140 (EB-3) and Consular Processing (Immigrant Visa)

CLIENT: Commercial Linen Producing Company Petitioner; Korean Beneficiary in South Korea

LOCATION: Petitioner: Virginia; Beneficiary: Seoul, South Korea

Our client is in South Korea who took voluntary departure in 2008 to South Korea as a result of his removal proceedings. However, before he left the United States, his prospective employer filed an I-140 petition for him in April 2008 and later this I-140 petition was approved.

Our client and his family members went back to South Korea and did not think that they could come back to the United States because of their voluntary departure. Nevertheless, his prospective employer contacted our office in June 2013 and asked our legal assistance for our client’s immigrant visa processing. It was a very difficult case, but with the approved I-140 petition, our client wanted to take his last try. His I-140 petition was still valid.

After we were retained, our office filed an I-824 application to the USCIS on June 23, 2013 to move his case from the USCIS to National Visa Center. After the I-824 was filed, everything went smoothly and the receipt notices came on time. The I-824 application was approved by the USCIS and this case was transferred to the National Visa Center.

After the I-824 approval, we filed the immigrant visa packets to the National Visa Center on July 25, 2014, who in turn forwarded the client’s materials to the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea. An interview notice was set for the client at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul. On April 2, 2015, our client and his family members appeared at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea. The interview went well; however, the consular officer wanted to see our client’s past immigration record including his previous I-485 denial. 

Our client did not have his I-485 denial notice, so our office filed a Track I FOIA on April 8, 2015 to the USCIS. On May 12, 2015, the USCIS issued a copy of his I-485 denial notice and our office immediately emailed our client this document. Then, our client submitted his I-485 denial notice and his other past immigration records.

Eventually, on May 27, 2015, the U.S. Embassy in Seoul issued immigrant visas for our client and his family members. With the approved Immigrant visas, they can come to the  United States as lawful permanent residents. 

{ 0 comments }

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

CLIENT: LPR Father; Chinese Beneficiary Minor Sons in China

LOCATION: Petitioner: Ohio; Beneficiary: China

I-130 FILED: July 19, 2013

I-130 APPROVED: November 14, 2013

IV APPROVED: May 27, 2015

Our client retained us to bring his minor sons over from China. He was born and raised in China, but lives in the United States as an LPR (Green Card holder).

On July 19, 2013, our firm filed the I-130 Petitions to the CIS. There were no Requests for Evidence throughout the pendency of the petition. On November 14, 2013, the I-130 Petitions were approved. However, we could not start the immigrant visa processing because their visa numbers were not available. In April 2014, once their visa numbers were available, we then started the immigrant visa processing phase of trying to get his sons over to the United States.

On April 17, 2014, we filed the immigrant visa packet to the National Visa Center who in turn forwarded our clients’ materials to the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, China. An interview notice was set for our client’s sons at the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, and we prepared them for their interview. On May 27, 2015, the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, China approved and issued their immigrant visas.

With the approved immigrant visas, our clients’ sons can come to the United States immediately, and they will get their green cards within two weeks of entry.

{ 0 comments }

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

CLIENT: US Citizen Petitioner Mother; Chinese Beneficiary Minor Son in China

LOCATION: Petitioner: Ohio; Beneficiary: China

I-130 FILED: June 11, 2014

I-130 APPROVED: July 21, 2014

IV APPROVED: June 1, 2015

Our client retained us to bring her minor son over from China. She was born and raised in China, but was naturalized in the United States.

On June 11, 2014, our firm filed an I-130 Petition to the CIS. There were no Requests for Evidence throughout the pendency of the petition. On June 21, 2014, the I-130 Petition was approved. We then started the immigrant visa processing phase of trying to get her son over to the United States.

On March 12, 2015, we filed the immigrant visa packet to the National Visa Center who in turn forwarded our client’s materials to the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, China. An interview notice was set for our client’s son at the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, and we prepared him for his interview. On June 1, 2015, the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, China approved and issued their immigrant visa.

With the approved immigrant visa, our client’s son can come to the United States immediately, and he will get their green cards within two weeks of entry.

{ 0 comments }

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

CLIENT: Chinese

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client contacted us in May 2014 about the possibility of getting an immigrant visa through the EB-11 category. He is an internationally known Pianist and is currently working as a pianist in the Cleveland area.  Our client has received multiple international awards and has appeared in numerous recitals in several cities in the world.  Also, has performed at the Carnegie Hall in New York City,  and has been published in publications such as the Plain Dealer. 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):

(A) Aliens with extraordinary – an alien is described in this sub-paragraph if-

(i)                 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,

(ii)               The alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability, and

(iii)             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:

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

(ii)               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;

(iii)             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;

(iv)             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;

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

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

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

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

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

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

After the review of our client’s credentials and qualifications, we determined that our client can meet 4 of the 10 categories, which is more than 3 required as an alien of extraordinary ability. Our client has been awarded numerous national and international awards for his piano performance; has made an original contribution in the musical field of piano performance; has participated in a judging panel in numerous prestigious national and international piano competition events; and his distinguished achievements and success in piano performance were published in professional and major media.

Our office prepared a 19-page brief for our client’s EB-11 filing. Our client also obtained 8 letters of recommendation from internationally well-known piano professors and players. Our office also included his performance coverage, awards, media coverage, medals, recital records, and other materials to show that he is an alien of extraordinary ability in piano performance. His EB-11 I-140 application contained 55 exhibits.

Our office filed his I-140 (EB-11) petition to the USCIS Nebraska Service Center via regular processing on October 31, 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 met more categories and provided more letters of recommendations, media coverage documents, recent performance records, and leadership positions.  Our office filed the response to RFE on June 19, 2015.  Eventually, on July 7, 2015, the USCIS Nebraska Service Center approved his I-140 self-petition.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Green Card (Same Sex Marriage Case)

CLIENT: Filipina

LOCATION: New York, NY

Our client came to the United States on a B-2 visitor’s visa from the Philippines in August 2013. She had a same-sex partner who is her current spouse.

On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of “marriage” and “spouse” to apply only to heterosexual unions, by Section 3 of the defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013). After Windsor decision, the USCIS implemented a new policy that the USCIS officer must review immigration via petitions filed on behalf of a same-sex spouse in the same manner as those filed on behalf of an opposite-sex spouse. As long as a same-sex couple is married in a U.S. state that recognizes same-sex marriage, their marriage shall be considered a valid marriage under the immigration law.

After DOMA was struck down, our client and her current LPR spouse, decided to get married. They married in New York, NY on September 10, 2013 where same-sex marriage is recognized. On the same day of their marriage, our client contacted our office and retained us for her I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application. Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application, together with all necessary supporting documents, on September 16, 2013. Although the Petitioner was a green card holder, we could file the I-130/I-485 simultaneously at that time because the priority date for the F2A category was current in September 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 clients via conference calls. On December 17, 2013, our client was interviewed at the New York City USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu accompanied them as well. However, the F2A category’s priority date retrogressed before her adjustment of status application was adjudicated. Nevertheless, her priority date became current in June 2015. Eventually, on July 1, 2015, the USCIS approved our client’s green card application. 

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-130 (Petitions for Parents) and I-485 Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Romanian

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client retained us to petition his parents for their green cards. Our client was born and raised in Romania, but was naturalized in the United States in 2014. He contacted our office in late August of 2014 and discussed with us the green card process. After consultation, he retained our office on August 22, 2014.

Once retained, our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Applications on September 23, 2014 for his parents.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. Eventually, on July 1, 2015, our client’s parents’ adjustment of status applications was approved. Now, they are green card holders.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751

APPLICANT: Korean

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client contacted our office in early January this year regarding her I-751 application.

She is from South Korea and she married a U.S. citizen in November 2012. Through her marriage, she obtained a 2-year conditional green card in March of 2013.  Her conditional residency terminated in March 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 again on January 14, 2015 and our office prepared an I-751 application for our client with supporting documents.

On February 5, 2015, our office filed an I-751 application to the USCIS with multiple affidavits from her friends and family members, joint bank statements, joint taxes, utility bills, insurance policies, and photos of our client and her husband to demonstrate the bona fideness of their marriage.

Once the application was filed, a fingerprint notice was issued two weeks later. There was no RFE issuance or interview request for our client’s I-751 application. As a result, on June 30, 2015, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application and our client received her 10-year green card which removed the conditions.

{ 0 comments }