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

EMPLOYER: Nursing / Rehabilitation Center

BENEFICIARY: Filipina 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, she is working at a hospital in the Philippines as a nurse. Her prospective employer was willing to petition her 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 March 2009.

Since she is a registered nurse, she 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 her that her potential employer can petition her as a Registered Nurse under the schedule A category. More importantly, since the priority date of her previous I-140 was current, she can eventually apply for her immigrant visa via consular processing. Our office was retained on October 3, 2014 and we started on her Prevailing Wage Request.

We filed the I-140 application on December 9, 2014 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 December 22, 2014, the I-140 was approved and it retained our client’s old priority date.  Now, our client can eventually file her immigrant visa application.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Asylum

CLIENT: Saudi Arabian

LOCATION: Dallas for Client / Houston for Asylum Office

Our client retained us in September 2014 to help him with his asylum case. He is from Saudi Arabia living in Dallas Texas. He is scared to go back home to Saudi Arabia, fearing that he will be persecuted on account of his social group as gay / homosexual.

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

The asylum application was filed on October 22, 2014. On November 20, 2014, the CIS issued an interview notice for his asylum case, scheduled for December 8, 2014 in Houston, Texas. Prior to his interview, our office prepared him thoroughly for his case, going over practice interviews by phone to make sure he is able to address questions the asylum officer would ask. On December 8, 2014, attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our client at his interview in Houston Texas. The interview went well and our client was able to answer all questions accordingly. There were no requests for evidence prior to nor after the interview. Everything went smoothly.

On December 22, 2014, the CIS in Houston approved our client’s asylum case. He is now an asylee and will be eligible to apply for permanent resident status in one year. He also would obtain his work permit in about two weeks.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status.
NATIONALITY: Ukrainian
LOCATION: Indianapolis, IN

Our client came to the United States with J-2 visa when he was a child. Later, he changed his J-2 visa to F-1 when he started his undergraduate program. As explained in a previous success story, our office worked on our client’s J-2 visa waiver through the Interested Government Agency (IGA) route.  Eventually, the CIS issued an I-612 approval notice for our client’s waiver of the two-year foreign residency requirement in 2012. Our office also helped him in  his H-1B visa petition in 2012.

In July 2014, our client married his U.S. citizen wife.  He retained us again and sought legal assistance for his I-485 adjustment of status application. Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and the I-485 adjustment of status application on October 6, 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 December 29, 2014, our client was interviewed at the Indianapolis USCIS office. On the same day, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-130 Approval / Velarde Hearing in Immigration Court

CLIENT: Nigerian

LOCATION: New Orleans, LA

Our Nigerian client came to the United States in August 2011 with a valid F-1 student visa to study in a college. However, he did not maintain status and was placed in removal proceedings in July 2012. After he got a Notice to Appear, he appeared at his initial master calendar hearing at the New Orleans Immigration Court without an attorney.

In May, he contacted our office and asked us whether we can take his case. He was married to a US Citizen, but he also had two previous marriages and divorces, also to US Citizens. We told him an I-130 can be filed, but that we need bona fides from his first two marriages also. We explained that the strength of his wife’s I-130 for him would also depend on how he can prove that his first two marriages were in good faith.

He retained our office on May 16, 2014. He married his U.S. wife in May 2014 and our office filed the I-130 petition for our client with a bona fide marriage exemption letter and bona fide marital documents. We organized the exhibits so that bona fide evidence from his first two marriages are also shown. We filed the I-130 application to the USCIS on June 12, 2014.

On June 17, 2014, our attorney Glen Yu appeared at his master calendar hearings via telephonic appearance. Attorney Yu did pleadings for our client, requested adjustment of status relief for our client, and requested a continuance based on a pending I-130 petition. However, the DHS requested a Velarde hearing to the Court. The DHS requested this hearing to determine whether proceedings should be continued to allow USCIS to adjudicate the I-130. DHS argued that our client’s marriage to his U.S. citizen spouse is presumptively invalid under immigration purposes since he married his wife after initiation of removal proceedings.

A Velarde Hearing is a hearing to establish whether good cause exists to continue proceedings for adjudication of a pending I-130 petition. A variety of factors may be considered, including, but not limited to: (1) DHS’ response to the Motion to continue; (2) whether the underlying visa petition is prima facie approvable; (3) the Respondent’s statutory eligibility for adjustment of status; (4) whether the Respondent’s application for adjustment merits a favorable exercise of discretion; and (5) the reason for the continuance and any other relevant factors. Matter of Hashimi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009).

The Velarde hearing for our client was scheduled for August 18, 2014. Prior to the hearing, our office filed a brief in support and more documents to demonstrate the bona fide nature of our client’s marriage to his U.S. citizen wife.  Attorney Sung Hee Yu from our firm prepared him and his wife extensively via conference calls. He also represented our client at the Velarde Hearing at the New Orleans Immigration Court on August 18, 2014.

The hearing went well and as a result, the Court concluded that our client’s I-130 petition is prima facie approvable. After the Velarde hearing, the USCIS scheduled the I-130 interview for our client and his U.S. citizen wife. Our office prepared them for their interview. On December 31, 2014, our client and his wife appeared at the USCIS New Orleans Field Office for their I-130 interview. Attorney JP Sarmiento accompanied them at the interview. The interview went well, and the USCIS approved the I-130 petition for our client on the same day. With the approved I-130 petition, we can terminate his removal proceedings with the cooperation with New Orleans DHS office.

{ 0 comments }

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

EMPLOYER: Nursing Care Facility

BENEFICIARY: Filipina

LOCATION: Houston, TX

Our client is from the Philippines. Her prospective employer-sponsor was willing to petition her for a second-preference employment immigrant visa petition (I-140). Since she has a registered nurse license and the proffered position for her is a health services manager (nurse manager) at the nursing care facility, the petition 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). She did not have 5 years experience, but she had a Masters in Nursing.

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 Master’s degree in nursing. She also has a registered nursing license in the state of Texas. Our office was retained and we started on the Prevailing Wage Determination filing and other related matters.

Once the prevailing wage was determined, we filed the I-140 application on December 15, 2014 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.

Eventually, on December 22, 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-2 Category) / Schedule A / Premium Processing

EMPLOYER: Physician’s Office

BENEFICIARY: Indian

LOCATION: Florida

Our client is a certified nurse practitioner. Her prospective employer was willing to petition her for a second-preference employment immigrant visa petition (I-140). Since she was a certified nurse practitioner, she 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 a Bachelors and Masters degree in nursing and is a certified Nurse Practitioner. Our office was retained in October 2014 and we filed a Prevailing Wage Determination Request immediately.

We filed the I-140 application on December 5, 2014 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. However, on December 12, 2014, the USCIS Texas Service Center requested our client’s employer’s federal tax record to determine its “ability to pay.” Our client’s employer provided a copy of its federal tax record, and our office submitted the Response to RFE to the USCIS on December 14, 2014.

Eventually, on December 18, 2014, the USCIS Texas Service Center approved her EB-2 I-140 petition. Our client can file her adjustment of status application when her priority date becomes current.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-821D Application for Consideration for Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals / I-765 Employment Authorization Document

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Korean Client in Dayton, OH

As our office explained before on our website, the USCIS issued a memorandum in August 2012 regarding deferred action of childhood arrivals cases.  According to the USCIS Deferred Action Memorandum issued in August 2012, an individual who meets the following criteria may apply for deferred action:

◾Was under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;

◾Came to the U.S. before reaching his/her 16th birthday;

◾Has continuously resided in the U.S. since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;

◾Was physically present in the U.S. on June 15, 2012, and at the time of application to the USCIS;

◾Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012;

◾Is currently in school, has graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, has obtained a GED, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard or the U.S. Armed Forces; and

◾Has not been convicted of a felony, a “significant misdemeanor,” three or more other misdemeanors, or does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety;

Our client’s brother contacted our office immediately after he heard of this relief on the news.  His younger brother, our client, initially came to the United States in December 2000 with a valid B-2 visitor’s visa when he was only 8 years old.

As of June 15, 2012, our client was twenty (20) years old.   Also, our client was studying at a college in Dayton, Ohio. Our client went to grade school, middle school and graduated from high school in the United States.  Also, since his last entry to the United States in December 2000, our client never left the United States.

He was physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012 and has continuously resided here since December, 2000. Our client has never been convicted of a felony, a “significant misdemeanor,” three or more other misdemeanors, and does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.  So, our client was clearly eligible for deferred action.

In November 2012, through our office’s legal assistance, our client’s I-821D and I-765 were successfully approved. In September 2014, he retained our office again for the renewal of his DACA application.  Our client and his family members sent us supporting documents that prove our client’s education history, physical presence in the United States, and his initial entry to the United States.  Our office also prepared Form I-821D and I-765, and drafted a detailed cover letter demonstrating why our client should merit this relief.

On September 30, 2014, our office filed his I-821D and I-765 to the USCIS.  Eventually, on December 17, 2014, the USCIS approved our client’s I-821D and I-765.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-485 (adjustment of status) / I-140 (EB-2 Category)

EMPLOYER: Taekwondo (Martial Arts) School

BENEFICIARY: Korean

LOCATION: Erie, PA

Our client is a prominent Taekwondo master who is working as a Taekwondo coach. He had a Taekwondo school willing to do a second-preference petition (I-140) for him.  Our client has a Bachelors and Masters degree in a related field and has coaching experience. Although he had maintained his status as an O-1 visa holder in the United States, his previous green card application (Based on the EB-11 category) was denied.

After talking to our client, our firm decided that his potential employer can petition him as a Taekwondo Head 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 clearly eligible for EB-2 classification. Our client eventually retained us for his PERM labor certification in January 2013.

As we stated in a previous success story, his PERM Labor Certification was approved on May 13, 2014 despite the issuance of an Audit request.  After the PERM approval, our client retained us again for the I-140 petition.

We then proceeded with the I-140 Petition filing. One of the main requirements for the I-140 is that the petitioning company must show that it has the ability to pay the proffered wage for the beneficiary’s position.

The adjusted gross income was not enough. The current wage of the beneficiary was not enough. The net current assets were also not enough.

Thus, we attached the tax return schedule that showed the net current assets of the Petitioner and combined it with his wage to argue that this combination establishes Petitioner’s ability to pay the prevailing wage. A combination of the net current assets and our client’s current salary was over and above the prevailing wage and the proffered wage.

We included the job offer letter, employment verification letters from our client’s previous employers, and other necessary supporting documents.  The I-140 Petition was filed on June 2, 2014 via premium processing.  Eventually, on June 17, 2014, the I-140 EB2 Petition for our Korean client was approved.

Once his I-140 petition was approved, he retained our office again for his I-485 adjustment of status application. Once retained, our office filed an I-485 adjustment of status application for our client on June 3, 2014. However, on November 22, 2014, the USCIS Texas Service Center issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) and asked us to submit more documents to show whether our client has maintained his lawful status in the United States.

Our office promptly filed the Response to RFE to the USCIS on December 1, 2014 along with his previous I-129 approval notices. Eventually, on December 12, 2014, the USCIS approved our client’s adjustment of status application. Now, our client is a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Immigrant Visa / Consular Processing based on Approved I-140 / EB-11 (Alien of extraordinary ability)

CLIENT: Korean

LOCATION: Seoul, South Korea

Our client contacted us in September 2012, inquiring about the possibility of getting an immigrant visa through the extremely difficult EB-11 category.

He is a world-renowned Taekwondo coach, currently working for one of the best Taekwondo teams in South Korea.  Our client was a two-time world champion as a Taekwondo athlete and one of his students won the gold medal at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Also, he was the head coach for national Taekwondo teams in South Korea and Vietnam multiple times 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):

(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 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).

Regulations 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.

We determined that our client met 5 of the 10 categories, which is more than the 3 required as an alien of extraordinary ability.

Our client has made original contributions 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 events in the Summer Olympics; 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 prowess were published in professional and major media.

Our office prepared a 21-page brief for our client’s EB-11 filing. Our client also obtained 10 letters of recommendation among establishments sucn as the World Taekwondo Federation, Korea Taekwondo Association, former Olympic champions, Taekwondo head coaches from other national teams, etc.

Our office also included his coaching record, 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 65 exhibits.

Our office filed his I-140 (EB-11) petition to the USCIS Nebraska Service Center via premium processing service on August 1, 2013. On August 7, 2013, within a week of the filing, the USCIS Nebraska Service Center approved his I-140 self-petition.

Once his I-140 was approved, our client retained our office again for his and his wife’s immigrant visa processing. Once we were retained, our office filed the immigrant visa packets to the National Visa Center on October 25, 2013, 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 7, 2014, our client, his wife, and his newly born son appeared at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea The interview went well, however, due to health-related matter, the Embassy required our client’s wife’s medical examination report again. Our client submitted the required documents to the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea. Eventually, on December 10, 2014, the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea approved and issued his and his family members’ immigrant visas.

With the approved Immigrant visas, our client and his family members can come to the United States immediately, and they will get their green cards within two weeks of entry.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Adjustment of Status / 245(i)

CLIENT: Filipina

LOCATION: Anchorage, Alaska

Our Filipina client came to the U.S. as a crewman in 2002. Her last entry to the United States on a crewman’s landing permit was in November 2002. She has remained in the United States, and she currently resides in Alaska.

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) with the approved I-130 petition which was filed by her current U.S. citizen husband. Our client retained us on June 25, 2014.

Prior to retaining our firm, our client was a derivative beneficiary of an I-140 petition for her mother. When the I-140 was filed, our client was only 13 years old which made her a derivative beneficiary. Accordingly, she could be a beneficiary under the INA Section 245(i).

Section 245(i) of the INA allows certain foreign nationals to become permanent residents of the United States despite entering without inspection (EWI), overstaying, and entering on a C1/D crewman / seaman among others. 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 or if they entered on a C1/D (crewman / seaman), 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 and made amendments. 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.

On July 11, 2014, our office filed her I-485 adjustment of status applications under the 245(i) category for our client with the approved I-130 petition.  However, the USCIS denied our client’s application on August 15, 2014 and claimed that our client was restricted from adjustment of status by virtue of INA Section 245(a) and (c). They were wrong and the denial notice did not mention the fact that our client was ineligible for 245(i). Our client was eligible.

Our office immediately filed a Motion to Reopen (Form I-290B) on August 26, 2014 to the USCIS. In our brief in support, our office argued that our client is the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition filed before January 14, 1998, by virtue of the I-140 filed for her mother in 1989 including her as a derivative when she was only 13 years old. The Bach memorandum specifies that even if she is aged out, our client is still considered a beneficiary for purposes of adjudication under INA section 245(i). We also argued that since the petition was filed before January 14, 1998 that our client does not need to prove physical presence in the United States on December 21, 2000.  Eventually, the USCIS approved our client’s I-485 adjustment of status application on December 3, 2014. After a long wait, our client is finally a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }