CASE: R-1 Religious Visa Petition

PETITIONER: Christian Church in Ohio

BENEFICIARY: Chinese Director of Music Performance

Our client is an F-1 student from China who is currently pursuing his DMA (Doctor of Music) degree. He contacted our office in October 2013 for his R-1 visa petition.

The R-1 religious worker visa allows ministers and others with a traditional religious occupation or vocation to work in the United States for a maximum five-year stay. By law, the requirements for an R-1 visa petition are the following:

• The R-1 sponsoring organization is a bona fide religious organization with a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, either by itself or through a group ruling. If the sponsoring organization was not granted tax-exempt status as a religious organization, it must be affiliated with a religious denomination;
• The R-1 visa applicant must have belonged to the religious denomination of the organization for at least two years;
• The applicant must be coming to work for at least 20 hours a week on average for the petitioner.

Our client’s position is Director of Music Performance. Although he is not a minister, our argument was that he is still eligible to file his R-1 visa petition because his job position falls under the definition of “Religious Occupations.”

According to 8 C.F.R. Section 214.2(r)(2), a religious occupation is an activity which relates to a traditional religious function, e.g., “cantors, liturgical workers, translators, religious broadcasters, workers in religious hospitals, but not if they are performing lay work.”  Our client will not perform lay work, and his job duties are more akin to the “cantor” example in the regulations as he is an essential part of the musical department of the petitioner church.

Our client has also belonged in the religious denomination of the organization for more than two years. He has worked as a pianist and church organist for the last two years as well.

After retention, our office prepared his R-1 visa application extensively. We included documents regarding the petitioner church (including IRS Tax exemption letter, denomination determination letter, church’s weekly bulletin and church constitution), employment contract with detailed job descriptions, and documents regarding beneficiary’s qualification.

We filed the R-1 visa petition with various supporting documents on January 22, 2014.

Eventually, our client’s R-1 Visa application was approved on April 4, 2014 without any requests for evidence. Now the Beneficiary can work for the Petitioner on an R-1 visa status until October 2016.

{ 0 comments }

Case: I-130/I-485

Applicant/Beneficiary – French

Location: Cleveland, OH

Our client entered the United States in November 2013 from France under the visa waiver program. She came here to visit her U.S. citizen boyfriend (now husband). As a Visa Waiver Entrant, she was only authorized to remain in the United States for 90 days.

Less than a month after her entry, in late November 2013, our client and her U.S. citizen boyfriend got married in the United States.

Afterwards, she contacted our office, and they retained us.

One main issue in her green card application through marriage was the fact that she came to the United States under the visa waiver program.  Under the visa waiver program, citizens of certain countries can enter the U.S. for 90 days without a visa with the condition that the visitor waives his or her right to contest removal (other than on the basis of asylum).  The “no-contest” provision of the Visa Waiver Program is fundamental; if someone could enter under the VWP and then contest removability, it would defeat the whole purpose of the Program which is to make it easy for certain nationals to come to the United States to visit and then leave without all the red-tape involved in visa issuance.

Another potential issue was immigrant intent. When someone comes on a non-immigrant status or visa waiver, there shouldn’t be any intent on that entry to apply for adjustment of status. In their case though, despite the marriage, at that point they weren’t set on actually living in the United States. Thus, there was no immigrant intent upon entry.

Our office filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on December 26, 2013.  Our office requested the CIS to exercise favorable discretion in granting adjustment of status and argued that the application was filed before her authorized period of stay expired. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, the fingerprint appointment, and the work permit all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients.

On April 10, 2014, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS Field Office.  We accompanied them at the interview as well.  Despite the visa waiver and potential immigrant intent issue, on the same day, the USCIS approved her green card application.  Now, our client is a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

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

APPLICANT: Russian

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client contacted our office in early February of 2013 regarding her potential I-751 filing. She came to the United States as an F-1 student from Russia and she married a U.S. citizen (her ex-husband) in December 2010.

Through her marriage, she was able to obtain a 2-year conditional green card in July of 2011. Thus, her conditional residency terminated in July 2013.

Unfortunately, their marriage ended in February 2012. 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’s case was tough because they got separated a few months after she got the green card. However, she 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 19, 2013, our office filed the I-751 application with various supporting documents (over 18 exhibits and an affidavit over 5 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 July 29, 2013, 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 September 30, 2013.

In October 2013, 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 them of potential issues at the interview.

On November 14, 2013, 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 April 10, 2014. Now, she has her ten-year green card.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status.

NATIONALITY:Filipina

LOCATION: New York, NY

Our client is from the Philippines who came to the U.S. on a J-1 Visa in July 2005.  Upon completion of her J-1 program, she remained in the United States and changed her status to H-1B.  She was subject to the two-year foreign residency requirement.

In April 2013, she got married to her U.S. citizen husband.

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

Our office worked on our client’s J-1 waiver.  Eventually, the Philippine Embassy issued a No Objection Statement for our client, and sent this letter to the State Department’s Waiver Review Division.  On November 26, 2013, the Waiver Review Division issued a favorable recommendation based on the No Objection statement. The CIS receipted the fee and issued an I-612 approval notice for our client’s waiver.

After we received the I-612 waiver, our firm prepared and filed an I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application on January 16, 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 the conference calls.  On April 9, 2014, our client was interviewed at the New York USCIS office.  On the same day, her green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: J-2 Waiver of Two-Year Foreign Residency Requirement Post-Divorce

NATIONALITY: Russian

LOCATION: Virginia

Our client is a citizen of Russia who initially came to the U.S. on a J-2 Visa in February 1995. He came with his ex-wife who held a J-1 Visa as a visiting researcher. Both were subject to the two-year foreign residency requirement. Later, both of them started to work at International Governmental Organizations in the United States under G-4 visas. However, they were still subject to the two-year foreign residency requirement.

Unfortunately, their marriage did not work out and he eventually got divorced from his ex-wife. He remained in the United States and has continuously worked for his employer under a G-4 visa.

In September 2011, our client married his U.S. citizen wife. She wanted to file an I-130 petition for him, but he could not file for adjustment of status because of the two-year foreign residency requirement.

He contacted our office, and our firm was retained to do his J-2 waiver on February 12, 2014.

On February 19, 2014 the J-2 Waiver 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 was divorced from the J-1 visa holder.

On March 17, 2014, the DOS sent a recommendation to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) for our client be granted a waiver. On April 1, 2014, the USCIS issued the I-612 waiver approval.

{ 0 comments }

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

Our client is a U.S. citizen who married his wife in Busan, South Korea in July 2011.  Later, they had a son who was born in South Korea in March 2012. At the time of marriage and the birth of his son, our client was a green card holder. He became a naturalized the U.S. citizen in August 2012. After the marriage, he came back to the United States to pursue his studies and contacted our office and retained us to bring his wife and son to the States.

Our office prepared and filed two I-130 petitions for his wife and son to the USCIS on January 29, 2013. After the I-130 was filed, everything went smoothly, there were no requests for evidence, and the receipt notices came on time. The I-130 Petitions were approved on March 22, 2013.

After the I-130 approval, we filed the immigrant visa packets to the National Visa Center on October 18, 2013, who in turn forwarded our client’s materials to the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea. An interview notice was set for the client at the US Embassy in Seoul, and we prepared them for the interview. On March 7, 2014, the interview was conducted.  Eventually, on March 26, 2014, the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea approved and issued their immigrant visas.

With the approved Immigrant visas, our client’s wife and son can come to the United States immediately, and they will get their green cards within two weeks of entry.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Asylum in Immigration Court

CLIENT: Chinese

LOCATION: Philadelphia Immigration Court

Our Chinese client came to the United States in January 2009 without inspection and admission. After that, he filed an asylum application in July 2009 to the USCIS, but 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 Los Angeles Immigration Court with his previous attorney.

In July 2012, he moved to West Virginia from California. He contacted our office and asked us whether we can take his case. He retained our office on August 27, 2012.

We then filed a Change of Venue Motion to the Los Angeles Immigration Court which was later granted by the court. His venue was changed from Los Angeles, CA to Philadelphia, PA. Our attorney Glen Yu appeared at his master calendar hearings and his individual hearing was scheduled on March 28, 2014 at the Philadelphia Immigration Court.

Our client was persecuted and harmed in China based on his Christian belief. Our client was scared to go back home to China, fearing that he will be persecuted based on his religious belief. While he was in China, our client attended several home church meetings. As a result, he was arrested and detained by the Chinese police and he experienced harm and mistreatment in numerous occasions.

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 her family, colleagues and friends in China. 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 28, 2014 at the Philadelphia Immigration Court. Attorney Sung Hee Yu from our firm prepared him extensively. He also represented our client at his Individual Hearing at the Philadelphia Immigration Court.

Prior to the hearing, Immigration Judge held a pre-trial conference with Attorney Yu and the DHS counsel. It was a 90-minute conference, and 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 past persecution in China. 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: Filipina

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client contacted our office in early October 2013 regarding her I-751 application.

She is from the Philippines and she married a U.S. citizen in October 2011. Through her marriage, she obtained a 2-year conditional green card in January 2012.  Her conditional residency terminated in January 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 again on October 13, 2013 and our office prepared an I-751 application for our client with other supplemental exhibits.

On October 30, 2013, our office filed an I-751 application to the USCIS with multiple affidavits from her friends and family members, joint bank statements, utility bills, insurance policies, and photos of our client and her husband to demonstrate the bona fideness of their marriage.

After the application was filed, the fingerprint notice was issued two weeks later. There was no RFE issuance or interview request for our client’s I-751 application. As a result, on March 15, 2014, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application and our client received her 10-year green card.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status.

NATIONALITY:Indian

LOCATION: Austin, TX

Our client is from India who came to the U.S. on a J-1 Visa in December 2006.  He came to the U.S. for business training, but his J-1 program made him subject to the two-year foreign residency requirement.

In October 2013, our client married his U.S. citizen wife.

He is eligible to get a green card through marriage to U.S. citizen; however, before we can file his I-130/I-485 application simultaneously, he had to get a waiver of his two-year foreign residency requirement. Therefore, prior to his marriage, in order to get a waiver of his two-year foreign residency requirement, he consulted with our office and decided to retain our office.

Our office worked on our client’s J-1 waiver..  Eventually, the Indian Embassy issued a No Objection Statement for our client, and sent this letter to the State Department’s Waiver Review Division.  On August 6, 2013, the Waiver Review Division issued a favorable recommendation based on the No Objection statement. The CIS has receipted the fee and issued an I-612 approval notice.

Our firm then prepared and filed an I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application on October 25, 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 through conference calls. On March 25, 2014, our client was interviewed at the San Antonio, Texas USCIS office.  On the same day, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-130 Motion to Reopen Nunc Pro Tunc

CLIENT: U.S. Citizen Petitioner in California / Indian Beneficiaries in India

LOCATION: California

Our client is a naturalized U.S. citizen who resides in California. In August 2004, our client filed three I-130 petitions for her siblings who are in India.  Shortly after the filing of the I-130 petitions, our client received a receipt notice from the USCIS. Since the time that our client filed the I-130s, she has never moved and has never received any Requests for Evidence or decisions in the mail.

After she filed the petition, for the next nine years, she has always called the USCIS Customer Service Center to inquire about the status of the I-130 petitions. The CIS customer service personnel have always told our client that there were all in process. Petitioner has contacted the USCIS Customer Service Center throughout the last 9 years (from 2004 to 2013), and the only answer she got from the USCIS was that the Petition was still pending.

In August of 2013, our client made an Infopass appointment with the local USCIS office and went. When she went to the Infopass appointment, the officer there informed her that one of her cases was denied due to abandonment in 2009 and two of her I-130 petition cases were administratively closed in 2009 as well.

Over the past 9 years, our client and her siblings were waiting for the CIS decision with regard to the I-130 petition. Our client timely filed all requested documents at the time of initial filing of the I-130. There were no Requests for Evidence or denial decisions received in the mail. Despite her efforts, our client never received any succeeding notice about the I-130 petition. Only in August 2013 did she find out about the real processing status of the 3 Petitions when she went for an Infopass.

Our client became so disappointed and sought legal assistance to resolve this matter.

She retained our office on September 18, 2013 and our office promptly prepared and filed a Motion to Reopen to the USCIS the three petitions and asked the Service to exercise its discretion in re-opening nun pro tunc the cases beyond the filing deadline since our client has never been served nor informed by the CIS with regard to the administrative closure of the I-130 petitions.

Moreover, our Motion requested the CIS to summarily approve the I-130 petition for our client’s siblings because our client and her siblings have been waiting for the CIS decision for more than 9 years, without any decision from the USCIS.

The Motion noted that it would be extremely unfortunate and unfair for our client and her siblings if she has to re-file the I-130 petitions again since the priority date will be moved and they would have to wait another ten years.

Our office filed the Motions with Form I-290Bs on September 24, 2013.

On February 17, 2014, the USCIS California Center informed us that the cases are transferred to National Visa Center.

On February 25, 2014, the USCIS moved to reopen the matter, and also approved the two of her three I-130s with the old priority date.

Two of client’s 9-year pending I-130 petitions finally got an approval, and once priority dates become current, her siblings can file an Immigrant Visa in India, without having to re-file another I-130 and wait 10 more years.

{ 0 comments }