CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status
CLIENT: Ethiopian
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in 2003 with an F-1 student visa from Ethiopia to pursue her bachelor’s degree in the United States.  After she got her Bachelor’s degree, she took graduate studies and eventually got her Ph.D.

She married a U.S. Citizen in December 2012 and retained our office on January 6, 2014 for her adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on January 22, 2014.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time.

The interview was scheduled. However, our client’s U.S. Citizen husband left the U.S. for a medical mission in Tanzania and he planned to come back to the U.S. in September. Our office submitted an interview rescheduling request to the USCIS Cleveland Field Office, asking for an interview after September 2014. However, the USCIS Cleveland Field Office contacted our office and told us that they still want the beneficiary to appear for the interview even without the Petitioner.

Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our client at our office. We made sure bona fides are shown at the interview as well as documentation as to why her husband was abroad (mission).

On April 21, 2014, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, OH USCIS.  Our attorney accompanied our client as well. On April 25, 2014, her green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751

APPLICANT: Filipina

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client contacted our office in September of 2013 regarding her I-751 application.

She was from the Philippines and she married a U.S. citizen in June 2011. Through her marriage, she obtained a 2-year conditional green card in December 2011.  Her conditional residency terminated in December 2013.

To comply with immigration requirements, our client and her husband had to file an I-751 Joint Petition to Remove Conditions. She retained our office again on September 26, 2013 and our office prepared an I-751 application for our client with supplemental exhibits.

On October 11, 2013, our office filed an I-751 application to the USCIS with joint bank statements, utility bills, insurance policies, joint lease, joint tax records and photos of our client and her husband to demonstrate the bona fideness of their marriage.

Once the application was filed, the fingerprint notice was issued two weeks later.  However, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) on January 23, 2014.  The USCIS requested our client to submit more documentary evidence to prove the bona fide nature of her marriage with her husband. In response to the RFE, our office prepared the response and gathered more joint documentary evidence to demonstrate the bona fide nature of our client’s marriage. We filed the RFE response on March 5, 2014 to USCIS.

Eventually, on March 20, 2014, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application and our client received her 10-year green card which removed the conditions.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization)
APPLICANT: Filipino
LOCATION: Irvine, California

Our client contacted us in October 2013 to seek legal representation for his naturalization and citizenship N-400 application. He came to the United States from the Philippines and obtained his green card in February 2009. He retained our office for his naturalization and citizenship N-400 application on October 9, 2013.

The naturalization and citizenship N-400 application was filed on November 5, 2013 with all supporting documents. Our office prepared him before his naturalization interview through conference calls. On April 14, 2014, our client appeared for his N-400 interview at the Santa Ana CIS office. Our client answered all questions correctly and passed his naturalization and citizenship N-400 interview. Eventually, his naturalization application was approved on April 28, 2014. His oath taking is scheduled in which he will become a naturalized U.S. Citizen.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: J-2 Waiver of Two-Year Foreign Residency Requirement / Over 21-year-old dependent child

NATIONALITY: Australian

LOCATION: Houston, Texas

Our client is a citizen of Australia who came to the U.S. on a J-2 Visa in November 1999.  She came with her father who came on a J-1 Visa for his research program in the United States. Both were subject to the two-year foreign residency requirement, meaning they had to go back to their home country for two-years before they can apply for permanent residency or some non-immigrant visa such as the H, L, and O visas.

After our client came to the United States, she started to attend a community college in the Dallas area as a J-2 visa holder. In August 2000, she filed an I-539 change of status application to the USCIS, and this application was granted. She changed her status from J-2 to F-1. She completed her associate’s degree and proceeded to a Bachelor’s degree at a different academic institution. However, after she graduated in 2005, she failed to maintain her non-immigrant status in the United States.

She turned 21 in 2002.

She eventually got married to a U.S. citizen husband and her husband filed an I-130 petition for our client in April 2010. This I-130 petition was approved in July 2010. However, because of her two-year foreign residency requirement, our client could not apply for permanent residency.

Although J-2 dependents cannot independently apply for a waiver, in cases where a J-2 child reaches 21, the Waiver Review Division may consider requests for waivers on behalf of the J-2 dependent.  The Department of State’s policy allows for that process in instances where the J-2 dependent obtains a divorce form the J-1 principal, the J-1 principal dies, or in cases where the J-2 dependent turns 21, which is our client’s case. In fact, our client turned 21 in August 2002.

Our firm was retained to do her J-2 waiver on February 28, 2014. On March 17, 2014, the J-2 Waiver application (Form DS-3035 and supporting documents) was filed to the Department of State. We also sent a request to the DOS to be an interested government agency and recommend this waiver based on the fact that our client reached the age of 21 and was not a dependent of a J-1 visa holder anymore.  Eventually, on April 2, 2014 the DOS recommended to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) that our client be granted a waiver.  On April 28, 2014, the USCIS issued an I-612 approval notice for our client’s waiver request.

{ 0 comments }

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

CLIENT: Indonesian
LOCATION: Kentucky; San Francisco (EOIR)

Our client is from Indonesia who came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitor’s visa in March 2004. She has remained in the United States past her authorized period of stay.  Later, she filed for asylum and withholding of removal in April 2006, but the Immigration Judge in San Francisco, CA denied all applications for relief.

She filed an appeal with the BIA, but in June 2007, the Board affirmed the Immigration Judge’s findings and dismissed the appeal. She then proceeded to appeal her case at the Federal Circuit Court, but was denied. She even filed a Motion to Reopen, which was also denied in January 2013.

Our client remained in the United States with the final order of removal.

She married her current U.S. citizen husband in August 2012. Her husband filed an I-130 petition in November 2012, which was subsequently approved by the USCIS in November 2013.

Our client and her husband consulted our firm. They wish to know if she has any viable options for her immigration status.

After careful review, our office determined that we can file a Request to the DHS to join in a Motion to Reopen based on the I-130 approval and Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum.

Our client retained our office on December 4, 2013.

Once retained, our office prepared and filed a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen and Terminate to the San Francisco DHS office on February 21, 2014. Our office prepared an extensive brief along with multiple supporting documents to request a favorable exercise of DHS’s discretion on this case. Our client’s husband was a member of the US army, deployed in Afghanistan several times, and that was part of our argument.

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, she will be prima facie eligible to adjust her status. Our client has been living in the United States since 2004, has no criminal record, and has an approved I-130 petition based on the marriage to U.S citizen spouse.

Eventually, the DHS office agreed to join in our Motion to Reopen and Terminate on April 21, 2014. The DHS filed the joint motion to the San Francisco Immigration Court, and our client case will be reopened and terminated soon.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Asylum in Immigration Court

CLIENT: Chinese

LOCATION: Cleveland Immigration Court

Our Chinese client came to the United States on a B-2 visa in September 2009. He was persecuted and harmed in China based on his religious beliefs and its related activities, so within one year of his entry (in October 2009), he filed an asylum application (Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and relief under the CAT) to the USCIS.

He was interviewed at the Asylum Office in Los Angeles, but his case was referred to an immigration judge in December 2009. The Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceedings. The USCIS thought that our client’s testimony was different from that of his written statement and referred the case to the Court.

The case was initiated at the Los Angeles Immigration Court. However, our client moved to Columbus, Ohio in 2011. After he moved to Columbus, OH, our client contacted our office in early April 2011, and eventually retained our office on April 11, 2011. Once retained, our office immediately filed a Motion to Change Venue which was eventually approved by the Los Angeles Immigration Court. Our client’s case was then transferred to Cleveland, OH.

Our client was scared to go back home to China, fearing that he will be persecuted based on his religious belief and his active participation in religious events which are considered anti-government activities.

While our client was in China, he attended numerous underground home church meetings. As a result, he was arrested and detained by Chinese police and experienced harm and mistreatment.

We helped him supplement his asylum application and represented him in his immigration court hearings. We also asked him to provide supporting documents corroborating his claim, some of which were letters family and church members in China, and documents related to his religious activities. Our firm also did some research on articles related to his claim, and the type of persecution he will experience in China if sent back.

Our client’s individual hearing was scheduled on March 3, 2014 at the Cleveland Immigration Court. Attorney JP Sarmiento from our firm prepared him extensively. He also represented our client at his Individual Hearing.

During the hearing, our client testified about his past persecution in China and the likelihood of future persecution. After the hearing, the Immigration Judge re-set the case for a decision hearing which was originally scheduled for September of this year. Nevertheless, on April 24, 2014, the Immigration Judge issued a written decision and granted asylum relief for our client. He is now an asylee who will get his work permit in a short period of time and will be eligible to apply for permanent residency in one year.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751 / Waiver of the Joint Waiver Requirement
APPLICANT: Argentinian
LOCATION: Columbus, OH

Our client contacted our office in late September of 2013 regarding his potential I-751 filing. He is from Argentina and was married to a U.S. citizen in March 2011.

Through this marriage, he obtained a 2-year conditional green card in October of 2011. Therefore, his conditional residency terminated in October 2013.

Unfortunately, during their marriage, our client and his ex-wife went through some struggles. They lived separately for a while and their divorce was finalized in October 2013. Our client could thus not file the I-751 application jointly with his ex-wife.

After consultation, we advised him that we can help him file the I-751 application with a waiver of the joint filing requirement. 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.

On October 28, 2013, our office filed the I-751 application with various supporting documents (over 10 exhibits and an affidavit over 2 pages) to demonstrate our client’s bona fide marriage with his ex-wife.  Eventually, on April 16, 2014, the USCIS approved our request for removal of conditions on his permanent resident status without even an interview. Now, he has her ten-year green card.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751

APPLICANT: Indian

LOCATION: Toledo, Ohio

Our client contacted our office in October of 2013 regarding his I-751 application.

He is from India and married a U.S. citizen in October 2010. Through his marriage, he obtained a 2-year conditional green card in February of 2012.  His conditional residency was terminated in February 2014.

To comply with immigration requirements, our client and his wife had to file an I-751 Joint Petition to Remove Conditions. He retained our office on October 28, 2013 and our office prepared an I-751 application for our client with bona fide marriage evidence.

He had a criminal record and inquired about how this will affect his case. After doing research, we determined it will not.

On November 14, 2013, our office filed an I-751 application to the USCIS with multiple affidavits from his friends and family members, joint bank statements, utility bills, insurance policies, and photos of our client and his wife 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 April 3, 2014, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application and our client received his 10-year green card.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status
CLIENT: Belgian
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in October 2013 from Belgium under the visa waiver program. He came here to visit his U.S. Citizen girlfriend (now his wife). As a visa waiver entrant, he was only authorized to remain in the United States for only 90 days.

Within two weeks of his entry to the United States, our client and his U.S. citizen girlfriend got married. They were planning to move to the Netherlands, so he did not have any immigrant intent when he initially came to the United States. However, things changed, and they decided to settle in the United States, so he and his wife filed an I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application in January 2014.

Nevertheless, our client was worried about the potential immigrant intent issue so they contacted our firm in early April of 2014 for preparation and accompaniment at his green card interview. He retained our office on April 8, 2014. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our client at our office. On April 17, 2014, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland USCIS.  We accompanied our client at his interview as well.  On the same day, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-130 (Response to Notice of Intent to Revoke)

CLIENT: US Citizen Petitioner; Honduran Beneficiary

LOCATION: Petitioner: Cleveland, Ohio; Beneficiary: Honduras

Our client contacted our office in late January of this year. He is a U.S. Citizen living in Cleveland, Ohio and sought legal assistance for his wife’s case in Honduras. When he contacted our office, his wife already had an immigrant visa interview twice at the U.S. Embassy in Honduras.  However, her interview did not go well, and the Embassy returned the petition to the USCIS for further review and action on January 15, 2014.  Eventually, the USCIS, based on a request from the U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, issued a Notice of intent to revoke his I-130 petition on January 24, 2014.

Our client married his Honduran citizen wife back in June 2012. Our client then filed an I-130 petition for his wife in September 2012.  On December 20, 2012, the USCIS approved the I-130 petition and his wife was eventually interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. However, the U.S. Embassy denied her immigrant visa application, and the approved I-130 petition was subsequently returned to the National Visa Center by the Department of State for further review and action, and as stated above, the USCIS then issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke.

After our office was retained, we filed a Response to Intent to Revoke on February 7, 2014 with the USCIS Cleveland Field Office. Over 75 pages of documents and 7 exhibits were submitted in our response.

In our response brief, we rebutted each and every question that was raised by the USCIS regarding the bona fide nature of our client’s marriage to his wife in Honduras. As a result, on April 9, 2014, the USCIS determined that they will not revoke our client’s I-130 petition.

Now that the CIS has reaffirmed the I-130 petition, our client’s wife will get her immigrant visa, and will be reunited with his husband after almost two years.

{ 0 comments }