CASE: J-1 Waiver of  the Two-Year Foreign Residency Requirement, No Objection Statement
NATIONALITY: Indonesian
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our Indonesian client came to the U.S. on a J-1 Visa in April 2008.  He came to the U.S. for business training, and his J-1 visa made him subject to the two-year foreign resident requirement.  In October 2011, our client married his U.S. Citizen wife and he wanted to apply for permanent residency. However, due to the two-year foreign residency requirement, he had to obtain a waiver first.

After he retained our firm, we prepared and filed a waiver request through a No Objection Statement (NOS) from the Indonesian Embassy in the United States.  Our office contacted the Indonesian Embassy in Washington D.C. to make sure we knew all the requirements needed for their office to issue a no objection statement.  The Embassy requested nine different documents including a statement of reason for the waiver, the applicant’s resume, a copy of his valid Indonesian passport, and a copy of Form DS-3035.

On January 10, 2012 the J-1 Waiver (Form DS-3035) Application was filed to the Department of State.  We also sent a request to the Indonesian 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 marriage based adjustment of status application but for the waiver.

The Indonesian Embassy eventually issued a No Objection Statement for our client, and sent this letter to the State Department’s Waiver Review Division.  On February 16, 2012, 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 March 7, 2012.  Now that our client’s two-year foreign residency requirement is waived, we can prepare and eventually file his petition and adjustment of status application.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

For other J-1 waiver success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 2 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status
CLIENT: Malaysian
LOCATION: Milwaukee, WI

Our client came to the United States in December 1996 with a J-1 Exchange Visitor visa from Malaysia. Although her J-1 program ended in 1999, she stayed in the United States since then.  She got a waiver of the two- year foreign residency requirement. She married her U.S. Citizen husband in September 2007 and she retained our office in the middle of September 2011 for her adjustment of status application. Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on November 30, 2011. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permit all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients. On March 8, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Milwaukee, Wisconsin USCIS office.  Her green card application was approved on the same day.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

For other marriage-based green card success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Emergency Advance Parole Document (I-131)
CLIENT: Korean
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in 2010, and through our firm, got his I-140 National Interest Waiver self-petition and his waiver of the J-1 two-year foreign residency requirement. We then filed I-485 adjustment of status applications for him and his family with the approved I-140 petition in January 25, 2012.  The application included I-131 advance paroled applications. His adjustment of status application is still pending at the USCIS Nebraska Service Center.

On March 2, 2012, our client contacted our office in urgency.  He informed us that his mother’s medical condition is critical, so he needs to go back to Korea to take care of her as soon as possible.  However, his I-131 was still pending at that time, and his biometrics and fingerprinting appointment was not issued yet. He wanted us to expedite the advance parole (travel) document so that he could visit his ailing mother.

According to USCIS policy, if the applicant is experiencing an extremely urgent situation, an emergency advance parole document may be requested at the local USCIS office.  The emergency situation must fall under the following categories:

• Severe financial need to the company or individual
• Extreme emergency situation
• Humanitarian situation
• Non-profit status of requesting organization in furtherance of the cultural and social interests of the United States
• Department of Defense or National Interest Situation (Note: Request must come from official United States Government entity and state that delay will be detrimental to our Government)
• USCIS error
• Compelling interest of USCIS

We obtained a letter from his mother’s doctor from Korea, explaining the emergency medical situation, and our office prepared a brief for submission to the USCIS Cleveland Field Office.  On March 5, 2012, Attorney Sung Hee Yu and our client appeared at Cleveland CIS office for an Infopass appointment to apply for the emergency advance parole.  The CIS Officer allowed our client to take biometrics on the same day, and reviewed our emergency advance parole application.  On March 6, 2012, only one day after the emergency application, the CIS Cleveland Field Office recommended approval for our client’s application and requested expedited service to Nebraska Service Center.  On March 7, 2012, the USCIS Nebraska Service Center approved our client’s I-131 advance parole document. Our client now is free to visit his mother in South Korea and come back to the United States with no issues during the pendency of his adjustment of status application.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

For other success stories, please click here.

Feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 4 comments }

CASE: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization)
APPLICANT: Filipina
LOCATION: Chicago, Illinois

Our client contacted us in October 2011 to seek legal assistance for her naturalization application.  She came to the United States from the Philippines and obtained her green card in 2006.  She retained our office on October 17, 2011 to assist in her citizenship application.

The application was filed on October 26, 2011 with all required supporting documents.   Our office prepared her before the interview, and our client was scheduled to appear before the Chicago USCIS office on March 5, 2012.  On the same day, her naturalization application (N-400) was approved.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

For other naturalization and citizenship success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status
CLIENT: Filipina
LOCATION: Des Plaines, IL

Our client came to the United States in 2001 with an H-1B visa to work as a registered nurse. Her previous employer filed an I-140 petition under the EB-3 classification on her behalf.  The petition was later approved, and our client’s priority date was August 2001.  Thereafter, she maintained her status as an H-1B visa holder and has extended her H-1B status.

In November 2011, our client sought legal assistance from our office regarding her adjustment of status application.  After reviewing her documents and the Department of State’s visa bulletin, we determined that her priority date was current and that we could apply for her adjustment of status application.  She retained our office on November 14, 2011 and our firm prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application and I-765 Employment Authorization Documentation on November 27, 2011.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices and fingerprint appointment came on time.  On February 27, 2012, the USCIS Nebraska Service Center approved our client’s adjustment of status application.  After a long wait, our client finally became a green card holder.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

For other employment-based green card success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: J-2 Waiver of Two-Year Foreign Residency Requirement / Over 21-year-old dependent child
NATIONALITY: Ukraine
LOCATION: Indianapolis, IN

Our client is a citizen of Ukraine who came to the U.S. on a J-2 Visa.  He came with his father who was on a J-1 Visa to pursue his Ph.D. 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 H, L, and O.

After our client came to the United States, he completed his high-school as a J-2 visa holder and later went to college.  Our client initially started his bachelor’s program in a J-2 status, but in January 2011, he changed his status from J-2 to an F-1 student visa through the U.S. Embassy in Canada.  He had to change his status from J-2 to F-1 because he turned 21 in January 2011. After graduation, he applied for OPT (Optional Practical Training), later got a job offer, and started to work for this company in Indianapolis.

Our client contacted our office in December 2011, and sought legal advice regarding the J-2 waiver process.  His OPT will be expired in July 2012, and his current employer was willing to sponsor his H-1B visa.  However, without a waiver of the 2-year foreign residency requirement, our client would not be able to change his status to H-1B.  Our office explained to him that we can do the J-2 waiver application through the Interested Government Agency (IGA) route.

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 this 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.

Our firm was retained to do his J-2 waiver on December 20, 2011. On January 9, 2012, 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 is not a dependent of the J-1 visa holder anymore.  Eventually, on January 27, 2012 the DOS recommended to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) that our client be granted a waiver. On February 29, 2012, the CIS granted the J-2 waiver.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

For other J-2 waiver success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Nigerian
COURT LOCATION: Baltimore, Maryland / New York, NY
RESIDENCE: Brooklyn, NY

Our client came to the United States with valid B-2 visitors visa in 2002, and later married his previous U.S. Citizen wife. He filed his green card application based on his previous marriage, but they separated prior to the interview so he never got notice of his interview, denial and the eventual notice to appear in Court.

Years later, our client married his second U.S. Citizen spouse, and he again filed for his green card application himself. Prior to retaining our firm, he went to his I-130 and adjustment of status interview only to find out that he had a final order many years ago. He did not know about it. So his case was denied. He was told by the officer that he had to reopen his case. We met our client at our New York office and he retained us on August 2010 for the Motion to Reopen.

If an alien does not go to his or her scheduled hearing with the Immigration Court, regardless of the reason, you will on that day have an in absentia order of removal. Once this is triggered, you are susceptible to being detained and subsequently deported by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Through a Motion to Reopen, the Immigration Judge can rescind the in absentia order of removal if you are able to show that you did not receive proper notice of the notice to appear. If the Notice to Appear was sent to the wrong address for example, then there’s a good basis for a Motion to Reopen.

On August 31, 2010, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Baltimore Immigration Court. Documentation of his address at the date of the final order, a detailed 4-page affidavit regarding his addresses and his circumstances around the final order date, documentation of the last address he provided to the immigration service prior to the final order date, and other supporting documents were submitted. The Department of Homeland Security did not file an opposition or response to our Motion. On November 8, 2010, our office called the Court to follow up and we were informed that the Motion was granted.  Upon approval of the Motion to Reopen, we filed a Motion to Change of Venue as well.  The Baltimore Immigration Court granted our Motion, and later our client’s venue was changed to New York, NY.

Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our client at his Master Calendar hearing at the New York Immigration Court in March 2011, and he explained that an I-130 is pending and that a Stokes interview should be scheduled soon. On September 15, 2011,
Attorney JP Sarmiento accompanied our client and his U.S. Citizen wife for their I-130 Stokes interview. The interview went well, and the USCIS officer determined that our client’s marriage to his U.S. citizen wife was bona fide.  On the same day, the I-130 petition was approved.

With the approved I-130 petition, we filed a request to join in a motion to terminate with the DHS.  After review of our client’s application, the DHS agreed to join the motion. On October 22, 2011, the New York Immigration Court granted our Motion to Terminate, so our client’s removal proceedings were terminated.  Thereafter, our client filed an I-485 Adjustment of Status application to the USCIS on October 25, 2011.

Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. There was no Request for Evidence.  Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients. On February 13, 2012, our client was interviewed at the New York City, NY USCIS.  We accompanied them at the interview as well. The interview went well, and our client’s green card application was approved on February 28, 2012.

After being in the U.S. for over 10 years and having a final order of removal for about nine years, our client finally has his permanent resident card.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

For other Motion to Reopen success stories, please click here.

For other Marriage-Based Green Card success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Master Calendar / Bond Redetermination Hearing
APPLICANT: Chinese
LOCATION: Florence Immigration Court AZ

Our office was contacted in the middle of February regarding two Chinese people who were detained in Florence, Arizona. They tried to enter the United States without valid documents and were incarcerated by immigration officers.

Prior to retention, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement set a very high bond amount.  Our client wished to have that reduced so we filed a motion for bond redetermination with the Florence Immigration Court in Arizona.  Our office communicated with them and their U.S. resident relative in Iowa and New York, and gathered as much information regarding their relief, equities, criminal record, family ties, and financial ability to post bond.  We also gathered supporting documents from those relatives, from proof of their status and residence, to bank statements and tax returns.

On February 23 and 24, 2012, we represented our clients at their Florence Arizona Immigration Court master calendar and bond re-determination hearings.  For the Master Calendar hearing, we did pleadings and sought asylum relief. During the bond re-determination hearing, we explained to the Court that our clients already passed their credible fear interviews, were not a flight risk, had established their residence upon release, had established their financial ability to post bond, and that they had ample family ties in the United States who submitted proof of their residence and immigration status.  Moreover, our office explained that their lack of criminal record, designated address with contact information from their relative in the United States, ability to post bond, and eligibility for asylum relief clearly demonstrate that the bond should be reduced.  At the end of the hearing, the Immigration Judge took our arguments into account and reduced the bond amount.

Our clients have been released, venue has been changed, and they are now in the process of preparing their asylum applications.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

For other jail case success stories, please click here.

For other deportation success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: BIA Appeal
CLIENT: Chinese
LOCATION: Elizabeth, NJ

Our client came to the United States without a valid visa and passport from China. She tried to enter the United States without valid documents, was incarcerated by immigration officers, and detained in Elizabeth, NJ.   Later, she filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) before the Immigration Court.  She claimed that she was persecuted back home based on her religious beliefs.

Her individual hearing was conducted on October 17, 2011 at the Elizabeth Immigration Court.  She was represented by her former immigration counsel, and after the hearing, the Immigration Judge denied her applications and had an adverse credibility finding.  She reserved appeal, and her relatives in the United States contacted our office to do her BIA appeal.

Our office was retained on October 27, 2011.  On October 28, 2011, our office filed a Notice to Appeal with the BIA. We then filed a brief in support of our client’s case on December 8, 2011. We argued that the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination was clearly erroneous.  After reviewing the trial transcript, we argued that our client testified in a credible manner and her testimony was largely consistent and plausible, citing specific examples based on the transcript.

On February 24, 2012, the BIA sustained our appeal. The BIA vacated the Immigration Judge’s decision, and remanded our client’s case to the Immigration Court for further fact finding.  The BIA also found that the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding was clearly erroneous because it was based, in large part, on our client’s omission during her testimony.  The BIA requested the Immigration Court to further assess our client’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

For other BIA appeal success stories, please click here.

For other deportation case success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Adjustment of Status / Public Law 111-83 / INA Section 204(l) Amendment Issue (less stringent humanitarian reinstatement process)

CLIENT: Filipina

LOCATION: Chicago, IL / Los Angeles, CA

Our Filipina client came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitor’s visa in 2001 and overstayed her status. Currently, she resides in Los Angeles, California.

Prior to retaining our firm, her father filed an I-130 petition for her back in 1987. As some of you know, priority dates for Philippine nationals under the family-based immigration category are more retrogressed than other countries. The I-130 petition was approved by the INS in 1987.  However, she could not apply for her green card until her priority date became current.  Therefore, she had to wait for more than 15 years in order to even apply for her green card.

Unfortunately, her father (I-130 Petitioner) passed away before she was eligible to apply for her green card.  She was placed in removal proceedings after the DHS found out about her overstay. She was under the impression that nothing could be done since her father (the I-130) petitioner died.

We explained that we can terminate removal proceedings and we can help her adjust status with a substitute sponsor. Our office was retained in November 2010, and we later filed her I-485 Adjustment of Status application with a substitute sponsor (her US Citizen sister) and a Request to Join in a Motion to Terminate with the Department of Homeland Security in Los Angeles.

Before 2009, through the more stringent humanitarian reinstatement process, the INS (USCIS now) allowed the foreign national’s spouse, parent, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sibling, child who is at least 18 years of age, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, grandparent, grandchild, or legal guardian to become a substitute sponsor if a family-based visa petitioner dies following the approval of the I-130 petition but before the foreign national obtains permanent residence. Even if the I-130 had been approved, it would be deemed revoked once the petitioner dies. At that time, reinstatement of the revoked petition was not automatic despite a substitute sponsor being available. And the process was still a matter of discretion. The INS had to determine whether “humanitarian reinstatement” was appropriate based on the individual facts of the case.  Thus, the applicant must demonstrate exceptional hardship and request for humanitarian reinstatement if his or her petitioner is deceased before the petition gets reinstated.

Public Law 111-83 (2009) eased this burden for beneficiaries whose petitioners died prior to their adjustment of status application.  The new regulation does not require “humanitarian reinstatement” anymore.  Therefore, as long as they meet certain qualifications such as having physical presence in the U.S. at the time of the petitioner’s death and also having a qualified substitute sponsor for these beneficiaries, the beneficiaries are eligible to adjust.

Our client’s US citizen sister was willing to become a substitute sponsor and she met the physical presence requirement. On January 5, 2011, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to Terminate with the Los Angeles DHS. Our client’s master calendar hearing was scheduled on February 2, 2011 at the Los Angeles Immigration Court. Prior to her hearing, the DHS counsel in Los Angeles agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings.

With this joint motion, Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office represented our client at the Los Angeles Immigration Court.  Attorney Yu explained the new regulation and how this law applied to our client’s situation before the Immigration Judge.  The Immigration Judge granted termination without prejudice and her case was transferred USCIS Chicago Field Office for adjudication of her I-485 application.

On April 5, 2011, our client appeared at Chicago CIS office for her adjustment interview.  Attorney Yu accompanied her at the interview, and the interview went pretty smoothly. Attorney Yu explained the new regulations and explained them that the old humanitarian reinstatement standards were not needed anymore.

However, on October 3, 2011, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) for our client. The CIS argued that our client was not able to show humanitarian reasons for reinstatement.

It seemed though that the RFE did not take into account PL 111-83 and the new 2009 law. Under the new law, the Petition survives the death of the Petitioner also in categories of beneficiaries as long as they were residing in the U.S. on the date the Petitioner passed away and continue to reside in the U.S., including married sons and daughters of citizens and green card holders. A substitute sponsor who is a qualifying relative, such a U.S. Citizen sibling, shall still be needed, but the humanitarian factors are not.

Since our client’s case clearly fell under the amendments for INA Section 204(l), our office filed a Response to RFE on October 13, 2011 including a cover brief and 14 exhibits. We attached the law itself and highlighted the relevant parts.  Eventually, our client’s adjustment application was approved by the USCIS on February 15, 2012.  After a long wait, our client is finally a green card holder.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

For other family immigration adjustment of status success stories with deceased petitioner and substitution issues, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 1 comment }