CASE: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization)

APPLICANT: Pakistani

LOCATION: Michigan

Our client contacted us in May 2014 to seek legal representation for her naturalization and citizenship N-400 application. She came to the United States from Pakistan and obtained her green card in July 2008. She retained our office for her naturalization application on May 15, 2014.

The N-400 application was filed on May 28, 2014 with all supporting documents. Our office prepared her before her naturalization interview via conference calls.

On September 30, 2014, our client appeared for her interview at the Detroit CIS office.  Our client answered all questions correctly and passed. Eventually, her naturalization application was approved. Her oath taking is scheduled in which she will become a naturalized U.S. Citizen.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Filipina

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our Filipina client came to the United States on a J-1 exchange visitor visa to do her internship in the United States in July 2013. She was not subject to the two-year foreign residency requirement.

She married a U.S. Citizen in June 2014 and retained our office on June 27, 2014 for her adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on July 10, 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 as well.

On September 30, 2014, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, OH USCIS.  Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our clients as well. On the same day, her green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT in Immigration Court

CLIENT: Cameroonian

LOCATION: Memphis Immigration Court

Our Cameroonian client came to the United States in December 1999 on an F-1 student visa. In July 2001, he filed an asylum application to the USCIS, was interviewed by the USCIS, and later his case was referred to the Immigration Court.  Thereafter, a Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceedings. After he got the Notice to Appear, he appeared at his initial master calendar hearing at the Memphis Immigration Court with his previous attorney.

His removal proceedings were continued, but he could not appear at his individual hearing in April 2003 due to hospitalization.  Thus, the Court found him removable and ordered him removed in absentia.

Later, in April 2011, he filed Motion to Reopen with assistance of his previous immigration counsel.  However, this Motion to Reopen was denied by the Court in July 2011.

Thereafter, he contacted our office to determine whether he can file a Motion to Reopen again.  After consultation, we explained to him that the only way the Court can reopen his case is based on changed country conditions in Cameroon.  It is because our client’s second Motion to Reopen can be considered untimely filed and numerically barred.

Our client decided to retain our office on November 22, 2011 for a Motion to Reopen based on changed country conditions.

Under immigration law, if an applicant seeks to make an asylum claim and a final order of removal has been entered and the ninety-day filing deadline for motions to reopen has passed, the BIA and the majority of Circuit Courts have found that the applicant may only file the asylum application through a motion to reopen and only under the “changed country conditions” provision of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i).  Thus, our office prepared the Motion to Reopen based on the changed country conditions in Cameroon.

On March 6, 2012, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Memphis Immigration Court.

W included a detailed affidavit regarding his involvement in a political activist group in Cameroon, and several affidavits from his fellow members who confirmed his involvement with the organization.  We claimed that the number of arrests and detentions of his political group member had recently escalated since his original removal hearing in 2003 resulting in changed country conditions.  We also attached a letter from a human rights officer in which he stated that he knew our client’s political involvement in Cameroon. Moreover, other supporting documents such as newspaper articles and a country report of Cameroon were submitted (24 exhibits).  On March 29, 2012, the DHS filed a Response in Opposition to our Motion.  Nevertheless, on May 2, 2012, the Memphis Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case.

Once his case was  reopened, he retained our office again. Our attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu appeared at his master calendar hearing via telephonic appearance and his individual hearing was scheduled on September 29, 2014 at the Memphis Immigration Court.

Our client was persecuted and harmed in Cameroon based on his political opinion and movement.  Our client was scared to go back home to Cameroon, fearing that he will be persecuted based on his political opinion. Moreover, our client’s late father and his uncle were mistreated and harmed in Cameroon due to their political opinion as well.

We helped him file his asylum application and represented him in immigration court hearings. We also asked him to provide supporting documents corroborating his claim, some of which were a letter from his family, colleagues and friends in Cameroon. Our firm also did some research on articles related to his claim, and the type of persecution he will experience in Cameroon if sent back.

Our client’s individual hearing was scheduled on September 29, 2014 at the Memphis Immigration Court. Attorney Sung Hee Yu from our firm prepared him extensively. He also represented our client at his Individual Hearing at the Memphis Immigration Court.

Prior to the hearing, the Immigration Judge held a pre-trial conference with Attorney Yu and the DHS counsel. During the pre-trial conference, all of the possible issues were examined. At the conclusion of the conference, withholding of removal was granted.

After the hearing, the Immigration Judge granted Withholding of Removal for our client based on his persecution in Cameroon. His removal will be withheld and our client can get his Employment Authorization Document and will not be deported.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751

APPLICANT: Cameroonian

LOCATION: Virginia

Our client contacted our office in January of 2014 regarding her I-751 application.

She is from Cameroon and she married a U.S. citizen in 2011. Through her marriage, she obtained a 2-year conditional green card in April of 2012.  Her conditional residency terminated in April 2014.

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 on January 29, 2014 and our office prepared an I-751 application for our client with bona fide marriage evidence.

On March 17, 2014, our office filed an I-751 application to the USCIS with multiple affidavits from her friends and family members, joint bank statements, joint tax records, utility bills, and photos of our client and her husband to demonstrate the bona fideness of their marriage.

There was no RFE issuance or interview request for our client’s I-751 application. As a result, on September 22, 2014, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application and our client received her 10-year green card.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-130 and Consular Processing (Immigrant Visa) – Marriage-Petition
CLIENT: US Citizen Petitioner; Filipino Beneficiary in the Philippines
LOCATION: Petitioner: New York; Beneficiary: Manila, Philippines

Our client is a U.S. citizen who married her Filipino boyfriend in the Philippines in 2011.  She had her marriage ceremony with her husband in the Philippines in September 2011.  When she came back to the United States, she wanted to bring her husband over here.

She contacted our office in late March 2013 and retained our office to help bring her husband to the States. Since the client’s husband was not in the United States, and their marriage occurred in the Philippines, our office filed the I-130 on April 15, 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 December 5, 2013.

After the I-130 approval, we filed the immigrant visa packets to the National Visa Center on April 29, 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 July 16, 2014, our client’s husband appeared at the U.S. Embassy in Manila, Philippines. They then asked for an NBI clearance and CENOMAR, which were eventually submitted. Eventually, on September 23, 2014, the U.S. Embassy in Manila, Philippines approved and issued his immigrant visa.

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-485 Adjustment of Status / I-140 (EB-2 Category) / Schedule A

CLIENT: Filipino

LOCATION: New Jersey

Our client is a certified nurse practitioner. His current employer-sponsor (on OPT) was willing to petition him for a second-preference employment immigrant visa petition (I-140). Since he is a certified nurse practitioner, 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 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. Our office was retained on January 9, 2014 and we started the Prevailing Wage Determination filing and other related matters.

Once the prevailing wage was determined, we filed the I-140 application on April 11, 2014 via premium processing. We included the job offer letter, the notice of filing, his 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 Schedule A designation.

However, on April 24, 2014, the USCIS Texas Service Center issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) and requested petitioner-employer to explain recent ownership changes and further explanation on the entity arrangement. Our office prepared the response to RFE and filed it along with supplemental evidence on May 8, 2014 to the USCIS. On May 15, 2014, the USCIS Texas Service Center approved his EB-2 I-140 petition.

Once the I-140 petition was approved, our client retained our office again for his I-485 adjustment of status application. Our office filed an I-485 adjustment of status application for our client on May 23, 2014. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices and fingerprint appointment came on time.

Eventually, on September 20, 2014, the USCIS Texas Service Center approved our client’s adjustment of status application. Now, he finally is a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

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

EMPLOYER: Nursing / Rehabilitation Center

BENEFICIARY: Filipina

LOCATION: Houston, TX

Our client’s beneficiary is a registered nurse from the Philippines licensed in the state of Texas. She came to the United States in 2013 and now she holds an F-1 status, and 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 July 2007.

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 adjustment (can actually be filed simultaneously, the beneficiary just opted to wait for the I-140 approval to make sure we got the approval and the old priority date). Our office was retained on July 28, 2014 and started on her Prevailing Wage Request.

We filed the I-140 application on September 12, 2014 via premium processing. We included the job offer letter, the notice of filing, her previous I-140 approval notice, and other necessary supporting documents.  Eventually, on September 24, 2014, the I-140 was approved and it retained our client’s old priority date.  Now, our client can file an I-485 adjustment of status application based on the approved I-140 petition since her priority date is current.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: H-1B Visa Petition

PETITIONER: Pharmacy in California

BENEFICIARY: British Pharmacist Intern in the United Kingdom

Our client is a pharmacy located in California.  They contacted our office in early March of this year to seek legal assistance for a possible H-1B petition for a prospective foreign employees.

The beneficiary obtained his Bachelor’s degree in Pharmacy in the United Kingdom. Also, the beneficiary is a licensed pharmacist in the U.K. and she is currently residing in the U.K. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is a Pharmacist Intern which we argued qualifies as a specialty occupation.

Upon retention, our office prepared and eventually filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on March 31, 2014 via regular processing. This H-1B petition was selected after the lottery.

However, the USCIS mailed a Request for Evidence to the Petitioner-Employer and requested Petitioner to submit additional evidence for the qualifications of Beneficiary for the proffered position. The USCIS requested the Petitioner to submit evidence regarding his lack of license – in particular, further proof that she could not get a license in California due to what we claimed on the initial application as a lack of social security / status.

The USCIS was skeptical and argued that Beneficiary is not qualified for Pharmacist Intern position because she did not have a California Pharmacy license yet. We thus had the beneficiary submit further documents to the California State Board, including fees, in order to receive the deficiency letter (print-outs regarding California’s requirements were initially submitted showing that a social security is needed, but these days, CIS wants an actual deficiency letter… they want you to actually pay and submit an actual application even though your requirements are missing, so that the deficiency letter can serve as your evidence in the H-1B petition) on Beneficiary’s license application from the California State Board of Pharmacy to explain why she could not get her license (she could not get a license because she does not have a social security number).

In the response brief, our office argued that the beneficiary did apply for the California License but she does not have a license yet due to a deficiency in her social security number. We also argued in light of the Donald Neufeld March 21, 2008 Memorandum. According to the memo and adjudicator’s Field Manual Section 31.3(d), “adjudicators are instructed to approve the petition for a one-year validity period, provided that the sole reason why the alien beneficiary does not possess such license is that the appropriate licensing authority will not grant such license to an alien absent evidence that the alien has been granted H-1B status.” We argued that beneficiary’s status would allow her to obtain a social security number which will lead her to get her license. Moreover, our office submitted the documents to demonstrate Petitioner’s business viability (tax return and quarterly wage report) and other documents pertaining to an in-house project was also submitted.

Our office filed a detailed Response to RFE brief with exhibits to the USCIS California Service Center on September 3, 2014.  Eventually, our client’s H-1B application was approved on September 18, 2014. Now, the beneficiary can apply for an H-1B visa at the U.S. Embassy in London, U.K, and upon the issuance of visa, she can work for the Petitioner from October 1, 2014 for one year.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization)

APPLICANT: Portuguese

LOCATION: West Virginia

Our client contacted us in May 2014 to seek legal representation for his naturalization and citizenship N-400 application. He came to the United States from Portugal and obtained his green card in March 2009. He retained our office for his naturalization and citizenship N-400 application on May 27, 2014.

The N-400 application was filed on June 3, 2014 with all supporting documents. Our office prepared him before his naturalization interview via conference calls. On September 4, 2014, our client appeared for his N-400 interview at the Pittsburgh CIS office.  Our client answered all questions correctly and passed his naturalization and citizenship N-400 interview. Eventually, his naturalization application was approved on September 18, 2014. His oath taking is scheduled in which he will become a naturalized U.S. Citizen.

{ 0 comments }

 CASE: J-1 Waiver of the Two-Year Foreign Residency Requirement, No Objection Statement

 NATIONALITY: Malaysian

 LOCATION: Michigan

Our Malaysian client came to the U.S. on a J-1 Visa in August 2008.  He came to the United States to pursue his Bachelor’s program, and his J-1 visa made him subject to the two-year foreign resident requirement.  He later changed his status from J-1 to F-1 when he started this Master’s program. His research and higher education enhanced his interest in the field, and he would like to further his studies in the field.

However, since most of the research projects that interest him will take a longer time, and since some of the projects he had inquired on have resulted in the employers/institutions inquiring whether he is eligible to work beyond the OPT, he anticipated that most employers will eventually wish to petition him for an alternate form of visa such as an H-1B.

However, due to the two-year foreign residency requirement, he had to obtain a waiver first before he could change his current status in the United States.

After he retained our firm, we prepared and filed a waiver request through a No Objection Statement (NOS) from the Malaysian Embassy in the United States.  Our office contacted the Malaysian Embassy in New York and Washington D.C. to make sure we got all the requirements needed for their office to issue a no objection statement.  The Embassy requested different documents including a statement of reason for the waiver.

On October 24, 2013 the J-1 Waiver (Form DS-3035) Application was filed to the Department of State.  We also sent a request to the Malaysian Embassy to issue a No Objection Statement and recommend this waiver based on the fact that our client would have been eligible to file a change of status application but for the waiver.

The Malaysian Embassy eventually issued a No Objection Statement for our client, and sent this letter to the State Department’s Waiver Review Division. The Waiver Review Division issued a favorable recommendation based on the No Objection statement. The CIS then issued a receipt and an I-612 approval notice on September 18, 2014.  Now that our client’s two-year foreign residency requirement is waived, he can be a beneficiary of other non-immigrant visa in the United States without going back to Malaysia for 2 years.

{ 0 comments }