CASE: I-751 / Waiver of the Joint Waiver Requirement

APPLICANT: Dominican

LOCATION: Orlando, FL

Our client contacted our office in early December of 2014 regarding her pending I-751 filing. She came to the United States from the Dominican Republic and she married a U.S. Citizen (her ex-husband) in July 2011.

Through her marriage, she was able to obtain a 2-year conditional green card in March of 2012. Her conditional residency terminated in March 2014.

Before her 2 year green card expired, our client filed an I-751 application JOINTLY with her ex-husband in 2014. However, while the I-751 application was pending, their marriage started to fall apart. Our client experienced a lot of difficulties in her marital life with his ex-husband. Eventually, they were SEPARATED AND FILED FOR DIVORCE IN DECEMBER 2014. Their marriage ended in February 2015 (divorce issued). While her I-751 was pending, she retained our office to convert her I-751 from joint filing to a waiver of the joint filing category.

According to an April 9, 2009 USCIS Memorandum by Director Neufeld, “USCIS may not deny a petition solely because the spouses are separated and/or have initiated divorce or annulment proceedings…  If a Service Center ISO encounters an I-751 petition jointly filed by co-petitioners who are still married but are in divorce proceedings, the ISO issues the Conditional Permanent Resident (CPR) a Request for Evidence with an 87-day response period.  In the RFE, the ISO specifically asks the CPR to provide a copy of the final divorce decree along with a request to have the joint filing petition treated as a waiver petition.  This affords the CPR an opportunity to provide evidence that the proceedings have been finalized and it affords the CPR an opportunity to request a waiver to the joint filing without refilling.”

Based on this Memorandum and with various supporting documents (over 42 exhibits and an affidavit over 9 pages) to demonstrate their bona fide marriage, on December 26, 2014, our office promptly filed a new I-751 application with a Request to convert the joint filing to I-751 with waiver of the joint waiver requirement pursuant to the Neufeld April 3, 2009 Memorandum for I-751 Applications pending divorce proceedings. No new filing fees were included in this conversion request.

In January 2015, the USCIS scheduled an I-751 interview for our client. Prior to the interview, our office thoroughly prepared our client via conference calls and informed her of potential issues at the interview.

On February 24, 2015, our client was interviewed for her I-751 application at the USCIS Orlando, FL Field Office.  Eventually, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application. Now, she has her ten-year green card.

{ 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: Houston, TX

Our client’s beneficiary is a registered nurse from the Philippines licensed in the state of Texas. 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 July 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 July 22, 2014 and started on his Prevailing Wage Request.

We filed the I-140 application on March 15, 2015 via premium processing. We included the job offer letter, the notice of filing, his previous I-140 approval notice, and other necessary supporting documents.  Eventually, on March 23, 2015, the I-140 was approved and it retained our client’s old priority date.  Now, our client can file an Immigrant Visa application based on the approved I-140 petition since his priority date is current.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

NATIONALITY: Filipina

LOCATION: Albuquerque, NM

Our client is from the Philippines who came to the U.S. on a J-1 Visa in July 2011 to work as a teacher. In June 2013, she got married to her U.S. citizen husband and later on consulted with our firm for her J-1 visa waiver prior to applying for her adjustment of status application.

She was eligible to get a green card through her marriage to a U.S. citizen; however, before we can file her I-130/I-485 application simultaneously, she had to get a waiver of her two-year foreign residency requirement first

As a previous success story explained, our office worked on our client’s J-1 waiver.  Eventually, the Philippine Embassy issued a No Objection Statement for our client, and sent this letter to the State Department’s Waiver Review Division.  On July 21, 2014, the Waiver Review Division issued a favorable recommendation based on the No Objection statement. The CIS has receipted the fee and issued an I-612 approval notice for our client’s waiver on August 19, 2014.

Later on, our client retained us for her adjustment of status application. Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application for her and her two children on August 26, 2014.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time.  Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients through conference calls.  On March 10, 2015, our client and her two children were interviewed at the Albuquerque NM USCIS office.  On the same day, her and her two children’s green card applications were approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Joint Motion to Reopen and Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition

CLIENT: Pakistani
LOCATION: Indiana; San Francisco (EOIR)

Our client is from Pakistan who came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitor’s visa in May 2010. He remained in the United States even after his authorized stay expired.  Later, he filed for asylum and withholding of removal. However, he could not attend his hearing due to an emergency medical issue. He even notified the immigration court but his submission was procedurally incorrect (this was used as an exhibit in our motion). Subsequently, he received an order of removal in absentia. A few months later, his jewelry store got robbed too, leaving them with no money at that time to afford a lawyer for a proper Motion to Reopen.

Our client remained in the United States with the final order of removal. He married his current U.S. citizen wife. His wife filed an I-130 petition in April 2014 with help from of our office, which was subsequently approved by the USCIS in November 2014.

Our client and his wife were wondering whether he has any viable option for his immigration situation.  After careful review, our office determined that we can file a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen based on the I-130 approval and Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum.

Once retained, our office filed a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen and Terminate to the San Francisco DHS office on February 13, 2015. Our office prepared an extensive brief along with multiple supporting documents to request a favorable exercise of DHS’s discretion on this case. We argued that DHS should consider the following factors as set forth in Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum: (1) whether adjustment of status was available at the prior hearing; (2) whether the alien is statutorily eligible for adjustment of status; and (3) whether the alien merits a favorable exercise of discretion. Bo Cooper, Motions to Reopen for Consideration of Adjustment of Status (May 17, 2001). In considering these factors, as delineated in William J. Howard’s October 24, 2005, Memorandum, “Where a motion to reopen for adjustment of status… is filed on behalf of an alien with substantial equities, no serious criminal or immigration violations, and who is legally eligible to be granted relief except that the motion is beyond the 90-day limitation contained in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23, strongly consider exercising prosecutorial discretion and join in this motion to reopen to permit the alien to pursue such relief to the immigration court.” William J. Howard, Prosecutorial Discretion (October 24, 2005).

Our office argued that if our client’s case is reopened, he will be prima facie eligible to adjust his status. Our client has been living in the United States since 2010, has no criminal record, and has an approved I-130 petition based on his marriage to his U.S citizen spouse.

As a result, the DHS office agreed to join in our Motion to Reopen and Terminate. The DHS filed the joint motion to the San Francisco Immigration Court, and the San Francisco Immigration Court re-opened and terminated our client’s case on March 3, 2015. Now he can file for adjustment of status and work permit with the CIS.

{ 0 comments }

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

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Mexican

LOCATION: Ohio / Ciudad Juarez, Mexico (Visa Interview)

Our client came to the United States from Mexico in July 2003 without inspection and admission. When he made his entry to the U.S., he was only 16 year old.

He married his U.S. citizen wife in 2011 and they have a U.S. citizen child together. Through our office’s assistance, his U.S. Citizen wife filed an I-130 petition for him on July 19, 2013. This I-130 petition was approved on January 15, 2014.

However, our client cannot file for adjustment of status due to his ground of inadmissibility. He needs a waiver of inadmissibility to become a green card holder – a 601A provisional waiver.

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

Last year, 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 suffers from a great degree of medical hardship. Also, his U.S. citizen son has medical hardships as well. In the I-601A brief and supporting documents, our office included extensive medical reports of his wife.  We argued that if he was removed from the United States, extreme hardship to his husband 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 young child. Also, it would be extremely difficult for her to get the same level of therapy and satisfactory access to medical services in Mexico 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 Mexico, 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 August 14, 2014, we filed the I-601A waiver application which included the brief in support, his wife’s extensive medical examination records, and other documents that demonstrated hardship to his wife if he is removed from the United States.

Eventually, his I-601A waiver was approved on October 22, 2014.

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 November 26, 2014. In February 2015, the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico informed our office that they scheduled an immigrant visa interview for our client. Our client went back to Mexico to appear at his interview on March 5, 2015. On March 5, 2015, our client appeared at his immigrant visa interview at the Consulate, and the Consulate officer approved his immigrant visa on the same day.

Now, our client is back in the United States with an approved immigrant visa and he will get his green card in the mail within two weeks.

{ 0 comments }

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

EMPLOYER: Nursing Care Facility

BENEFICIARY: Filipina

LOCATION: Houston, TX

The beneficiary is from the Philippines. Her prospective employer-sponsor is 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 health services manager (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 has more than five years total experience as a manager. She also has a registered nurse 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 27, 2015 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 health services manager position falls under a Schedule A and EB2 designation. Moreover, we cited an AAO decision and argued that positions other than “registered nurses” can fall under the definition of professional nurses, and thus fall under the Schedule A designation as well. The position of Health Services Manager for Petitioner, considering its job description, is a “position other than registered nurses that still falls within the definition of a professional nurse.” As to the EB-2 classification argument, our office argued that the proffered position has a supervisory role and the complexity of job duties justify the EB-2 designation and the required 5 years experiences under the ONET Job Zone and the Department of Labor’s level.

Without any request for evidence (RFEs), on March 9, 2014, 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 her adjustment of status application at any time (she could have filed it simultaneous to the I-140, we just want to make sure the I-140 was approved first).

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-140 (EB-1C Category: Executives and Managers of Multinational Organizations)

EMPLOYER: Multinational Tire Corporation

BENEFICIARY: Korean

LOCATION: Ohio

Our client is a vice president of a multinational tire corporation in Ohio.  He is from Korea, and has worked for its parent company for 12 years in positions of increasing responsibility including that of Research and Development team manager. He came to the United States in February 2013 with an E-2 visa to work for current petitioner company (wholly-owned subsidiary of his previous employer).  He contacted our firm in December 2013, and discussed us his chances of getting a green card.  Based on our client’s educational and professional background and his current position at the worksite, our office determined that he was clearly eligible for the EB-1C classification for his I-140 petition. Our client eventually retained us for his I-140 and subsequent I-485 adjustment of status application.

An employer can petition for its foreign employee under INA § 203(b)(1)(C) if it demonstrates the following: (C) Certain multinational executives and managers – An alien is described in this subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding the time of the alien’s application for classification and admission into the United States under this subparagraph, has been employed for at least 1 year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof and the alien seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render services to the same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial or executive.

According to the INA §101(a)(44), 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(44) and 8 C.F.R §204.5(j)(2), “executive capacity” means an assignment in an organization in which the employee primarily: (1) Directs the management of the organization or a component or function; (2) Establishes goals and policies; (3) Exercise wide latitude in discretionary decision making; and (4) Receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, board of directors or stockholders.

Also, “managerial capacity” is defined as an assignment with the organization in which the employee personally: (1) Manages the organization, department, subdivision, function or component; (2) Supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional or managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the organization or department or subdivision of the organization; (3) Has authority to hire and fire or recommend personnel actions (if another directly supervises employees), or if no direct supervision, functions at a senior level; and (4) Exercises discretion over day-to-day operations of the activity or function.

After our office was retained, we prepared a thorough cover letter and obtained all necessary supporting documents from our client and the petitioning company. In our brief, we clearly demonstrated that our client met the requirements set forth in the INA §203(b)(1)(C).  First, the prospective U.S. employer (Petitioner-Company) has been doing business for at least 1 year.  Second, the prospective employer (Petitioner) in the United States is the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation or other legal entity by which the alien was employed abroad.  Third, if the worker is already employed in the United States, he or she was employed outside the United States for at least 1 year in the 3 years preceding admission as a non-immigrant in an executive or managerial capacity by the petitioner or by its parent branch, subsidiary, or affiliate. Last, the alien is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity.

In this case, the Petitioner-company has been doing business for 23 years in the United States. In addition, Petitioner-Company is the wholly-owned subsidiary of its Korean parent company where our client was employed for 12 years. Moreover, our client was employed outside the U.S. for at least 1 year in the 3 years preceding admission as a non-immigrant in an Executive or Managerial Capacity by the Petitioner’s parent company in South Korea.  Our client served as a team manager and later became general manager for the parent company.  He personally supervised and controlled the work of other researchers and engineers for new types and models of tire developments, and was primarily responsible for the company’s various new tires.  Lastly, our client is to be employed in the United States as a vice president for the petitioner.

On the application package, we included a detailed job offer letter, employment verification letter from our client’s previous employer (parent company), an organization chart, and a dispatch order.  Also, we included evidence regarding the relationship between the Petitioner-Company and its Parent company in South Korea.  The evidence included a copy of the certificate of ownership, a copy of the articles of incorporation, a copy the business registration certificate, a copy of the approval for overseas investment, a copy of the annual report and consolidated financial statements.  The I-140 Petition was filed on September 8, 2014.  On March 5, 2015, the I-140 was approved with no Requests for Evidence.  Now, our client can file the I-485 adjustment of status application based on the approved I-140 petition.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Filipina

LOCATION: Santa Clara, California

Our Filipina client came to the United States on a B-2 visitor visa in July 2014. Later, she married a U.S. Citizen in September 2014 and retained our office on November 10, 2014 for her green card application. She had previous J-1 visas, but she was not subject. BOTH her DS-2019 and visa stated that she was not subject to the 2-year rule.

Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on November 13, 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 as well. On March 3, 2015, our client was interviewed at the Santa Clara, California USCIS office. Eventually, on the same day, her green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-824 (Follow-to-join) based on approved I-140 and Consular Processing (Immigrant Visa)

CLIENT: Korean LPR Petitioner; Korean Beneficiary in South Korea

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

Our client is a Lawful Permanent Resident who got his green card under the NIW category with our office’s legal assistance in 2014.  He has a wife, and our client and his wife married before his adjustment of status application was adjudicated. However, his wife was in South Korea when he got his green card due to her employment. She could have been a derivative applicant at the time of our client’s green card filing, but she was not in the United States at that time. Nevertheless, we explained to our client that we can do an I-824 filing and consular processing for his wife when she wants to permanently move to the United States.

In May 2014, he contacted our office to do an I-824 follow-to-join application to the USCIS so that his wife can file an immigrant visa and come as a derivative beneficiary of the I-140 petition. He retained our office on May 13, 2014 to help bring his wife to the States.

After we were retained, our office filed an I-824 follow-to-join application to the USCIS on May 19, 2014. 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 on June 19, 2014 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 October 1, 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 February 27, 2015, our client’s wife appeared at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea. The interview went well, and eventually, on the same day, the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea approved and issued her immigrant visa.

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage Based Adjustment of Status / 245(i)

CLIENT: Mexican

LOCATION: Ohio

Our Mexican client came to the U.S. without inspection and admission by crossing U.S./Mexico border in October 1999. She has stayed here ever since. She got married to a US Citizen and in 2001 and her husband filed an I-130 for her in March 2001. She gave birth to a U.S. Citizen child thereafter. However, her first husband left her while pregnant, and the I-130 was denied. Yet she remained in the United States. Thereafter, she married her second U.S. husband in July 2008.

Our client contacted us around June of 2014 for consultation and sought legal assistance for her adjustment of status. After consultation, we determined that she is eligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(i), if we can only show physical presence in December 2000. Our client retained us on June 11, 2014.

Prior to retaining our firm, her U.S. citizen ex-husband filed an I-130 petition for her back in March 2001. Therefore, she was a beneficiary of an immigrant petition filed after January 15, 1998 and before April 30, 2001. Though the I-130 was denied, we explained that the I-130 petition was “approvable when it was filed” because they had a child together.

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. They have to prove physical presence in December 2000.

The USCIS has a list of “possible” documents to prove physical presence. However, our client did not have any of these. “Employment records” typically mean pay stubs, or W2s, or any official government document pertaining to work. She had none of those because she just got paid in cash. She cleaned houses when she first came. Thus, we argued that a letter from her ex-employer should suffice as “employment record”. We also wrote that the fact that she got married early in 2001 means that she met her husband in the US at or prior to December 2000. It was a gray area argument but our client was willing to go forth with it.

On November 19, 2014, our office filed their I-485 adjustment of status applications under the 245(i) category.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices and fingerprint appointment all came on time. There was no RFEs even.  We thoroughly prepared our client prior to her interview as well.

On February 23, 2015, our client was interviewed at the Cincinnati, Ohio USCIS Field Office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu, Esq. from our office accompanied our clients as well. The interview went well, and her adjustment of status application was approved on February 26, 2015. After a long wait, our client is finally a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }