CASE: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization)

APPLICANT: Egyptian

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client contacted us in June 2014 to seek legal representation for his naturalization and citizenship N-400 application. He came to the United States from Egypt and obtained his green card in August 2009 through the marriage to his U.S. Citizen ex-wife. He has since divorced his wife but it had been almost five years since he got his green card. He retained our office on June 13, 2014.

The N-400 application was filed on June 24, 2014 with all supporting documents. Prior to his citizenship interview, our office prepared him for his naturalization interview at our office. On September 9, 2014, our client appeared at the Cleveland, OH USCIS office for his naturalization interview. Our client answered all questions correctly and passed his naturalization and citizenship interview. Eventually, his application was approved on December 1, 2014. His oath taking is scheduled in which he will become a naturalized U.S. Citizen.

{ 0 comments }

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

CLIENT: US Citizen Petitioner; Filipino Beneficiary in the Philippines

LOCATION: Petitioner: Cleveland OH; Beneficiary: Manila, Philippines

Our client is a U.S. citizen who married his Filipina girlfriend in the Philippines in 2013.  He had his marriage ceremony with his wife in the Philippines in June 2013.  When he came back to the United States, he wanted to bring his wife over here.

He contacted our office in late November 2013 and retained our office to help bring his wife to the States. Since the client’s wife was not in the United States, and their marriage occurred in the Philippines, our office filed an I-130 first on December 17, 2013.

After the I-130 was filed, everything went smoothly and the receipt notices came on time. The I-130 Petition was approved by the USCIS on February 13, 2014.

After the I-130 approval, we filed the immigrant visa packets to the National Visa Center on August 22, 2014, who in turn forwarded the client’s materials to the U.S. Embassy in Manila, Philippines. An interview notice was set for the client at the U.S. Embassy in Manila. On December 4, 2014, our client’s wife appeared at the U.S. Embassy in Manila, The interview went well, and on the same day, the U.S. Embassy in Manila, Philippines approved and issued her immigrant visa.

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE: NACARA Suspension of Deportation

CLIENT: Guatemalans

LOCATION: Cleveland Immigration Court (EOIR)

Our clients came to the United States in 1989 with their parents from Guatemala. They were not inspected and admitted when they came to the United States. Our clients were very young children when they came to the United States. In 1989, their father filed an asylum application. Our clients were derivative applicants of the asylum application and the asylum application is classified under ABC benefits. Ever since, our clients have lived in the United States. The Order to Show Cause were issued against our clients and remaining members of their family in the 90s. Their deportation proceedings (later removal proceedings) were initiated against. Our clients were riders of their mother’s NACARA case until 2013 when she passed away.

They contacted our office in 2013 after they appeared at their master calendar hearings which took place after their mother’s death.  After careful review of their cases, we determined that they are eligible for NACARA Suspension of Deportation relief at the immigration court.

Under immigration law, a Guatemalan who is in either of the two categories described below, and who has not been convicted of an aggravated felony, is eligible for NACARA benefits:

1)      Category 1:

• Entered the U.S. on or before October 1, 1990;
• Registered for ABC benefits on or before December 31, 1991; and
• Has not been apprehended at time of entry after December 19, 1990.

2)      Category 2:

• Filed an application for asylum on or before April 1, 1990.

Moreover, to qualify for NACARA suspension of deportation, the applicant must merit a favorable exercise of discretion, in addition to proving the following:

• Continuous physical presence in the United States for seven years before the application for suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal is filed;
• Good moral character during the seven year period; and
• Removal would cause extreme hardship to the applicant or the applicant’s USC or LPR spouse, parent, or child.

Our clients’ case sufficiently meets the eligibility requirement and we determined that they will likely receive favorable exercise of discretion from the Court. After the Master Calendar Hearing, the Court scheduled an individual hearing date on November 4, 2014.

Our firm worked with our clients and their friends and family members for the application and supplemental documents. We gathered a lot documents regarding their good moral character and continuous residency. Our clients did not have any criminal convictions. We also contacted our client’s friends for supporting documents and letters of support.

In preparing our client for the Individual Hearing, Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office talked to our clients through conference calls. Our firm eventually was able to gather supporting documents and prepared supplemental evidence with multiple exhibits, and arranged them pursuant to the specific elements of NACARA Suspension of Deportation.

At the Individual Hearing on November 4, 2014, Attorney Yu represented our clients at the Cleveland Immigration Court. Prior to the hearing, Attorney Yu, DHS counsel, and the Immigration Judge had a pre-trial conference. Based on the extensive record and our clients’ background, the DHS agreed that our clients met all of the requisite elements of NACARA relief and deferred their decision to the Court. As a result, on December 1, 2014, the Cleveland Immigration Court granted our clients’ NACARA Suspension of Deportation relief. They have been here since 1989 and suffered a lot in the past. They finally are green card holders.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: H-1B Extension

PETITIONER:  Environmental Engineering Consulting Company

BENEFICIARY: Indian Principal Consulting Environmental / Water Engineer

Our client is an Environmental Engineering Consulting Company in Fairfax, VA. They contacted our office in October 2014 to seek legal assistance from our office for their foreign employee’s H-1B Extension.  The beneficiary is from India and obtained his Bachelor’s degree and Master’s Degree in Civil / Environmental Engineering. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is a Principal Consulting Environmental / Water Engineer which we argued qualifies as a specialty occupation.  He has been working for the Petitioner on a valid H-1B visa. The beneficiary already used his H-1B status for 6 years, but he is entitled to get a 3 year extension since he has an approved I-140 petition for him.

After retention, our office filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on October 21, 2014 via regular processing. Eventually, without any RFE, our client’s H-1B extension was approved on November 24, 2014. Now the Beneficiary can continue for the Petitioner on an H-1B status until December 31, 2017.

{ 0 comments }

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

EMPLOYER: Mental Health Care Service Provider

BENEFICIARY: Ghanaian Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse Practitioner

LOCATION: Indiana

Our client is a certified nurse practitioner. Her prospective employer-sponsor was willing to petition her for a second-preference employment immigrant visa petition (I-140). Since she is a certified nurse practitioner, 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 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 Nurse Practitioner is included in Schedule A.

Our client has both a Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in nursing. She has a Registered Nurse license and has an ANCC Psychiatric-Mental Health Nurse Practitioner Certificate.  Our office was retained on June 17, 2014 and we started the Prevailing Wage Determination filing and other related matters.

After  the prevailing wage was determined, we filed the I-140 application on October 24, 2014 via premium processing. We included the job offer letter, the notice of filing, her pay stubs, 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 November 8, 2014, the USCIS Nebraska Service Center issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) and requested our client’s CGFNS certificate. Our office prepared the response to RFE and filed it along with CGFNS certificate on November 20, 2014 to the USCIS. On November 28, 2014, the USCIS Nebraska Service Center approved her EB-2 I-140 petition. When we filed her I-140 petition, our client simultaneously filed her I-485 adjustment of status application as well. With the approved I-140 petition, her adjustment of status application will be approved soon.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Filipino

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our Filipino client came to the United States on an E-2 investment visa in November 2010. Later, he married a U.S. Citizen in July 2013. His U.S. citizen wife filed an I-130 petition and our client filed adjustment of status application in 2013, but his applications were denied due to an issue regarding the petitioner’s previous divorce decree.

Our client retained our office on February 14, 2014 for the re-filing of his petition and adjustment of status application. We made sure we obtained the proper divorce decree from Hawaii.

Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on February 21, 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 at our office. On June 16, 2014, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, OH USCIS office.  Attorney JP Sarmiento from our office also accompanied our client as well. The interview was took time, but our clients answered the questions well and demonstrated the bona fide nature of their marital life. Eventually, on November 19, 2014, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

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

APPLICANT: Ukrainian

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client contacted our office in early December of 2013 regarding her potential I-751 filing. She came to the United States as a J-1 exchange visitor from Ukraine and she married a U.S. citizen (her ex-husband) in November 2011.

Through her marriage, she was able to obtain a 2-year conditional green card in August of 2012. Thus, her conditional residency purportedly expires in August 2014.

Unfortunately, their marriage ended in January 2014. Our client experienced a lot of difficulties during her marriage with her ex-husband. Thus, our client could not file the I-751 application jointly with her ex-husband.

Our client had compelling reasons for getting separated and eventually divorced. We requested a waiver because our client entered into the marriage in good faith, but the marriage was terminated through divorce or annulment before they can file a joint petition. We focused on the supporting documents that she can show and helped her draft an extensive affidavit about their marriage, and why it ended the way it did.

On March 26, 2014, our office filed the I-751 application with various supporting documents (over 15 exhibits and an affidavit over 6 pages) to demonstrate our client’s bona fide marriage with her ex-husband.  We also attached numerous notarized affidavits from our client’s friends.

However, on June 23, 2014, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFEs) to demonstrate the bona fideness of our client’s marriage with her ex-husband. We filed an extensive Response to RFE to the USCIS with more bona fide marital documents on August 13, 2014.

In September 2014, the USCIS scheduled an I-751 interview for our client.

Prior to the interview, our office thoroughly prepared our client at our office and informed her of potential issues at the interview.

On October 16, 2014, our client was interviewed for her I-751 application at the USCIS Cleveland, OH Field Office.  Attorney Glen Sung Hee Yu from our office accompanied our client.  The interview was very extensive.  Nevertheless, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application on October 30, 2014. Now, she has her ten-year green card.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-140 / National Interest Waiver

CLIENT: Korean

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client contacted us in February 2014 about the possibility of doing a National Interest Waiver. He is a post-doctorate researcher and scientist in the field of biomedical engineering and cardiology research, and is currently working as a post-doctorate researcher in an academic institution in Cleveland, Ohio.

His significant contributions have placed him at the pinnacle of the field of biomedical engineering and cardiology research. He is a leading scientist with an excellent reputation in the area of the mechanism of atrial fibrillation. Our client’s research work has provided fundamental understanding of atrial fibrillation in an animal model of atrial fibrillation, and has advanced the development of an algorithm for future clinical treatment of atrial fibrillation by targeting critical epicardial and endocardial sites for ablation for many atrial fibrillation patients in the United States. Throughout his research career, our client has provided significant scientific contributions relevant to understanding mechanisms of atrial fibrillation which were highly evaluated by the reviewers of various journals and by colleagues and experts in the field.

Upon review of his credentials and qualifications, our office determined that he was qualified for the National Interest Waiver (NIW) category. Being qualified for NIW is beneficial since you would not need an employer nor family member to petition for you for green card purposes. You’d be eligible for a self-petition and unless you are from China or India, in which case you’d still have to wait for priority dates to be current, you would be eligible to apply for adjustment of status (green card) immediately without any lag in priority dates.

As a primer, NIW applicants must have a master’s or higher degree. The landmark immigration case that discusses the standards for NIWs is Matter of New York State Department of Transportation , 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Comm.1998). This case held that the qualifying applicant must show the following elements in his or her I-140 NIW petition: First, it must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Next, it must be shown that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U. S. worker having the same minimum qualifications.

Our office prepared a 19-page brief for our client’s NIW filing. Our client also obtained 7 letters of recommendation from his colleagues and internationally-recognized scientists. Our office also included his publication records, presentation records, and conference materials in the NIW application. We demonstrated the intrinsic merit of our client’s research in the United States, the national scope of his research, and asserted that our client would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. His NIW application contained 29 exhibits (Exhibit A to CC).

Our office filed his I-140(NIW) petition to the USCIS Nebraska Service Center on June 10, 2014. On November 18, 2014, the USCIS approved his I-140 petition without any Requests for Evidence. When he filed his I-140 petition, he simultaneously filed his adjustment of status application (I-485). Since his I-140 petition is approved, his adjustment of status application will likely be approved soon.

{ 0 comments }

Case: I-130/I-485

Potential Issue: Response to Notice of Intent to Deny

Client: Nigerian

Location: Fairfax, VA

Our client entered the United States in May 2008 from Nigeria with a B-2 visitor visa.  Later, she married her U.S. citizen husband in April 2012. She retained our office on February 12, 2013 for her adjustment of status application.

Our office prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on March 15, 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 client via conference calls for their USCIS adjustment of status interview.

On June 14, 2013, our client and her husband appeared at the Fairfax, VA USCIS office for her adjustment interview. The interview was extensive, and at the end of the interview, the USCIS officer scheduled another interview for them. The officer was suspicious regarding the bona fideness of our client’s marriage.

On September 5, 2013, Attorney JP Sarmiento accompanied our client and her husband again at the Fairfax, VA USCIS office her second interview. The interview took more than one hour and the officer thoroughly asked our client and her husband about the bona fide nature of the marriage and some martial issues that the officer had suspicions on.

On April 26, 2014, the USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID).  The NOID claimed that there was substantial and probative evidence that the marital union between the Petitioner and Beneficiary is not bona fide.  Moreover, the NOID points out that the submitted documentation of Petitioner and Beneficiary does not establish a bona fide nature of their marriage. Lastly, the NOID claimed that there were no third party affidavits for their marital relationship.

In response to the USCIS’s NOID, our office helped our clients draft an extensive affidavit. Multiple supporting documents and an affidavit from our client were all included as well as letters from their friends and neighbors, joint utility bills, joint insurance, and several pictures of our client and his wife in several occasions with different people.  Several legal authorities were cited based on particular issues discussed, and on May 22, 2014, we filed the Response to NOID prior to the 30-day deadline.

Finally, on November 7, 2014, the USCIS approved our client’s case. Both the I-130 Petition and I-485 Green Card Application were approved. Our client is now a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: J-1 Waiver of the Two-Year Foreign Residency Requirement, Extreme Hardship

 NATIONALITY:  Jordanian

 LOCATION: Virginia

Our client came to the U.S. on a J-1 Visa in September 2007 from Jordan.  He came to the U.S. for his research program, and his J-1 visa made him subject to the two-year foreign resident requirement. Our client would like to file an I-140 self-petition under the National Interest Waiver Category and also an adjustment of status application.  However, due to the two-year foreign residency requirement, he had to obtain a waiver first.

Our client could not pursue his waiver under the No Objection Statement or Interest Government Agency (IGA). Our client also received government funding for his research program which made his case tougher for the No Objection Statement or IGA waiver route. Our client, though, would like to pursue his J-1 waiver based on the exceptional hardship standard. In fact, our client’s U.S. citizen son is experiencing exceptional medical hardships.

According to 8 C.F.R. Section 212.7(c)(5), “an alien who is subject to the foreign residence requirement and who believes that compliance therewith would impose exceptional hardship upon her spouse or child who is a citizen of the United States… may apply for a waiver on Form I-612.”

Some of the factors in analyzing exceptional hardship are as follows: age of the subject, family ties in the U.S. and abroad, length and residency in the U.S., health / medical conditions, conditions in the country of removal – economic and political, financial status – business and occupation, position in / ties to the community. Matter of Anderson, 16 I&N Dec. 596 (BIA 1978).

After he retained our firm, we prepared and filed a waiver request through an exceptional hardship basis. On April 8, 2014 the J-1 Waiver (Form DS-3035) Application was filed to the Department of State.  Thereafter, our office prepared an affidavit for our client, an extensive brief in support of our client’s J-1 waiver application, and other supporting documents. Our client provided us with extensive medical documents and doctor’s reports for his U.S. citizen son’s medical conditions.  On April 17, 2014, our office filed an I-612 application to the USCIS and asked for them to issue and recommend this waiver based on the fact that our client’s son would experience exceptional hardship if our client needs to go back to Jordan for two years.

Eventually, the Department of State recommended a waiver for our client on November 7. 2014. Subsequently, the USCIS approved his I-612 waiver on November 12, 2014. Now that our client’s two-year foreign residency requirement is waived, he can file an I-140 NIW application along with his adjustment of status application in the United States (technically the I-140 NIW petition could have been filed, but the I-485 adjustment of status application could not be filed unless the waiver was approved).

{ 0 comments }