CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings and Adjustment of Status with USCIS

CLIENT: Senegalese

LOCATION: Columbus, OH

Our client is a Senegalese national who came to the U.S. with fraudulent documents many years ago. He resides in Columbus, Ohio.

Prior to retaining our firm, he married a U.S. citizen spouse and filed an I-130 petition, I-485 green card application and I-601 waiver application for his fraudulent entry. The I-130 petition was approved by the CIS, however, his I-485 application and I-601 waiver were denied by the CIS.  Fortunately, his appeal of the 601 waiver  was sustained by the Office of Administrative Appeals later.

In the meantime, he was placed in removal proceedings after the denial of his initial green card application. Thereafter, he consulted with our firm for representation in removal proceedings and adjustment of status. We explained that we can terminate removal proceedings and we can help his adjustment of status application. Our office was retained and within a few days, we filed a Motion to Terminate with the Immigration Court.

The DHS counsel opposed the termination of hearing. The basis was whether his manner of entry should be considered an admission.  A few months later at the scheduled contested Master Hearing, based on the BIA case Matter of Quilantan, Attorney JP Sarmiento argued that our client’s entry is an admission and that he has an approved I-130 and I- 601 waiver. The Immigration Judge granted termination. We then wrote a letter to the Columbus CIS office to reopen our client’s adjustment of status application since removal proceedings have been terminated. Within a few weeks, another green card interview was scheduled for our client. Client had his green card interview on December 6, 2010 in Columbus USCIS office. We prepared our clients before the interview and Attorney JP Sarmiento accompanied them. At the interview, the officer finally approved our client’s green card application.  After the long process, our client eventually obtained 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. 

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: H-1B Visa Petition – Response to Request for Evidence

PETITIONER: Advertising Media Company

BENEFICIARY: Albanian

LOCATION: California

ISSUE: Specialty Occupation

Our client is an advertising media company in California. The beneficiary is from Albania, obtained both a Bachelors and Masters degree in the United States and worked for her employer under the OPT program.  The Petitioner-Employer filed an H-1B application on behalf of our client on June 21, 2010 by themselves.  However, USCIS mailed a 5-page Request for Evidence to the Petitioner-Employer and requested Petitioner to submit additional evidence to establish that the proffered position to the beneficiary qualifies as a “Specialty Occupation.”

The USCIS was skeptical and argued that the proffered “Graphic Designer” position does not qualify as a “Specialty Occupation” under the federal immigration law.  Indeed, the law clearly states that an H-1B classification may be granted to an alien who will perform services in a specialty occupation which requires theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent as a minimum requirement for entry into the occupation in the United States, and who is qualified to perform services in the specialty occupation because she has attained a baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent in the specialty occupation.

The main issue for the client’s H-1B application was whether the “graphic designer” position requires a bachelor’s degree in graphic design or an equivalent degree which makes this position a “specialty occupation.”  Once Petitioner-Employer received the Request for Evidence (RFE) the from USCIS, our client retained us to prepare for the response. We gathered supporting documents from both the Petitioner and Beneficiary and did research on the advertising media industry to demonstrate that a bachelor’s degree is commonly required for graphic designer positions industry-wide.

Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu prepared a detailed cover letter to the USCIS with 15 exhibits (supporting documents) as a response to the RFE.  The exhibits included information regarding the Petitioner-Employer, a detailed letter from Petitioner-Employer regarding the position and past employment practices, advertisements for “graphic designers” proving that a Bachelor’s degree in graphic design or the like is required, etc.

Our office filed the response to RFE with the USCIS California Service Center on November 2, 2010.  Our client’s H-1B application was approved on December 6, 2010.  Now our client can work for her employer as an H-1B visa holder and she can work there for next three years.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: I-130 and Consular Processing – Marriage-Petition

CLIENT: Indian

LOCATION: Petitioner: Cleveland Ohio; Beneficiary: Pakistan

Our client is a U.S. citizen who married a Pakistani lady in Pakistan. He had his marriage ceremony with his wife in Pakistan, so he wanted to file an Immigrant visa for his wife by filing an I-130 petition.  It is important to note that an alien cannot adjust his or her status (gets a green card) outside U.S. by filing I-130 and I-485 simultaneously. The Petitioner also had questions on the fact that he was married before and filed an I-130 Petition for his previous wife. We explained that as long as that marriage was bona fide and the second one is bona fide (in good faith), there should be no problem.  Since the client’s wife was not in the United States, and their marriage occurred in Pakistan, our office promptly filed the I-130 and I-129K (for the wife’s K-3 visa) to the National Visa Center. 

The I-130 and I-129K were filed on May 21, 2010 to National Visa Center in New Hampshire.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices came on time. After the I-130 approval, we filed the immigrant visa packets to the National Visa Center, who in turn forwarded client’s materials to the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan. An interview notice was set for the client at the US Embassy in Islamabad, and we prepared her for her interview. On November 29, 2010, the beneficiary went to her interview in Islamabad, Pakistan and the officer right after informed them that the case was to be approved.

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

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: Change of Status from H-1B to H-4

CLIENT: Indian

LOCATION: Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Our client has been on H-1B status for two years and held his specialty occupation position. However, his H-1B status expired on September 10, 2010.  Before his H-1B status was expired, our client married his girlfriend who was an H-1B visa holder in the United States living in Cleveland Ohio.  As a family dependent of H-1B visa holder, our client has a chance to change his status from H-1B to H-4 before his H-1B is expired. Our firm was retained and we helped the client obtain supporting documents for the Change of Status before his H-1B was expired. On September 2, 2010, our firm promptly filed the client’s I-539 with detailed exhibits to USCIS Texas Service Center.  On November 24, 2010, the Change of Status was approved. Our client is now on H-4 and can maintain his lawful stay in the United States.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

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

NATIONALITY: Romania

LOCATION: Arizona

Our client is a Romanian national who came to the U.S. on a J-2 Visa.  She came with her husband who was on a J-1 Visa. Both were subject to the two-year foreign residency requirement, meaning you would have to go back to your home country for two-years before you can apply for permanent residency and some non-immigrant visas such as H, L, and O visas. (Our firm’s blog will explain this two-year residency requirement for J-1 visa holder and possible waiver application process later with further details).  Moreover, if you are subject to the two-year foreign residency requirement, you are not allowed to change some non-immigrant status in the United States.

Unfortunately, her marriage did not work out well after my client and her ex-husband came to the United States.  Eventually, she got divorced from her ex-husband and later married a U.S. citizen husband.  Her new husband petitioned I-130 and I-485 (green card process based on marriage) on behalf of our client, but her green card application was denied due to her failure to fulfill the two-year foreign residency requirement.  As mentioned above, an immigrant beneficiary who is subject to 2-year requirement cannot get his/her green card even if he/she marries a U.S. citizen until he/she fulfills the requirement or gets a waiver.

Once client’s green card application was denied, she contacted our firm and retained us. Our firm was retained to do this J-2 waiver on October 4, 2010. On October 11, 2010 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 October 26, 2010 the DOS recommended to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) that our client be granted a waiver. Eventually, on November 22, 2010, the USCIS approved the waiver of the 2-year foreign residency requirement. She obtained her waiver within 40 days!  Our client can apply for her green card without having to go back to Romania and be separated from her husband for two years.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: Bond Hearing

APPLICANTS: Chinese

LOCATION: Houston Texas

Our firm was contacted in early November regarding 4 Chinese individuals detained in Houston. They entered with fake documents at the George Bush International airport and was detained thereafter by immigration officers. The government informed them and they confirmed with us that it was a “no bond” situation. That meant they would not be released by the Department of Homeland Security even on a bond.

The only recourse was to argue their eligibility for a bond with the Immigration Judge in Houston. Upon our retention, we immediately filed bond hearings for our 4 clients. Despite them being in jail in Houston, we communicated with them and tried to gather as much information regarding their reliefs, equities, family, and financial ability to post bond. We contacted our clients’ several relatives and friend in Philadelphia and New York. We also gathered supporting documents from those relatives, from proofs of their status to bank statements and tax returns. In order to clearly show the Judge our clients’ eligibility for relief, we worked with our clients to prepare an asylum application even though it was not due, just to attach it as an exhibit and present the government and the Judge what their claims are about.

On November 20, Attorney Glen Yu represented our clients for the Houston Immigration Court bond hearing. He argued that our client was eligible for asylum relief, were not flight risks, 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 proofs of their residence and copies of their immigration status. The Judge took our arguments into consideration and a bond was granted thereafter. On November 24, the bonds were posted and all of our clients are now out of jail. They can now better prepare for their asylum cases as they are now not detained.

dev.sarmientoimmigration.com

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Motion to Reopen

CLIENT: Nigerian

COURT LOCATION: Baltimore, Maryland

RESIDENCE: Brooklyn, NY

Our client was a legal entry overstay, married to his U.S. Citizen wife. 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. He was told by the officer that he had to reopen his case. We met the client at our New York office and he retained us on August 2010 for the Motion to Reopen.

If you do not go to your 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).

A lot of people have different reasons for not going to Court. Some did not know what to do. Some did not know the repercussions of not going to Court and did not go. Some were sick or got into an accident earlier that day. Some did not receive notice of the hearing and did not know about it.

To rescind the final order, one has to get his case reopened. This is done through a Motion to Reopen filed with the Immigration Judge who gave the final order. When you have an in absentia order of removal and a Motion to Reopen based on lack of notice is filed on your behalf, your deportation is also stayed. This means that while this motion is pending, the DHS cannot deport you.

Based on this 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 hearing. If the Notice to Appear was sent to the wrong address for example, and not the last address you provided to the immigration service, 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. Our client now does not have the final order of removal and may seek relief with the Immigration Court, or seek termination of proceedings for CIS adjudication of his green 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. 

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: Change of Status from H-4 to F-1

CLIENT: Pakistani

LOCATION: Columbus, Ohio

Our client has been on H-4 status for many years. Those on H-4 get their status from being the under-21 child or spouse of someone on an H-1B temporary worker status. His father’s H-1B was extended, but his H-4 extension was cut short of the extension approval of his father because he was about to turn 21. Those on H-4 are allowed to study in the United States. Our client’s father wanted him to continue his studies in preparation for medical school and was concerned because his son’s H-4 status was cut short. Our firm was retained and we helped the client obtain supporting documents for the Change of Status. On September 20, 2010, before our client turned 21, we filed the I-539 Change of Status. On October 15, 2010, the Change of Status was approved. Our client is now on F-1 and can continue his pre-med studies.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: H-1B

PETITIONER: Manufacturing Company

BENEFICIARY: Sales Manager / Kenyan

LOCATION: West Virginia

Our client is a large manufacturing company in West Virginia who wanted to petition a Kenyan for a sales manager position. We took the case and prepared the H-1B Petition and all the preceding steps prior to filing. On July 14, 2010, the H-1B Petition was filed. There were no Requests for Evidence during the processing of the H-1B. On October 18, 2010, the H-1B Petition was approved for 3 years.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: Cancellation of Removal

CLIENT: Guatemalan

LOCATION: Ohio

ISSUES: Obstruction of Justice Record, Physical Presence Evidence, Hardship

Our client retained our firm one week before his Individual Hearing. He had two attorneys before who withdrew their representation. For over a year he was unrepresented. Our client claims nobody would take their case for that time. Before he retained our firm, he merely mentioned that he filed for Cancellation of Removal and that his hearing was coming up on October 21, 2010 before the Cleveland Immigration Court.

For a non-permanent resident to be eligible for Cancellation of Removal, the alien must prove that s/he:

• Has been physically present in the U.S. continuously for ten years prior to the issue date of the Notice to Appear;
• Has been a person of good moral character;
• Has not been convicted of any crimes that would make her/him inadmissible;
• Her/his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her/his U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, parent, or child.

We took his case upon asking him questions regarding the above elements. We were not sure if his claim was strong. Our client did not have copies of anything he submitted.

The day after we were retained, we went to the Immigration Court in Cleveland for a file review of our client. We made copies of the file and assessed the strength of their case. We thought at that point it was weak. But we only had 6 days left, 4 business days.

On October 18, 2010, 3 days before our client’s Individual Hearing, pursuant to our client’s request, we filed a Motion for Continuance to allow our firm to prepare for the Individual Hearing and to allow him time to submit more supporting documents. As mentioned, he was not represented for over a year. It was a stretch because the hearing was in three days. Court rules require at least 15 days for pre-hearing motions, but we were only retained 7 days before and asked for Court discretion. We kept following up with the Court but there was no decision for the next two days, understandably so.

Preparing anyway for the Individual Hearing, our firm worked together with the client in the small time we had to prepare supplemental exhibits. We called them several times for supporting documents. The day before the Individual Hearing, there was still no decision on the Motion for Continuance. Our firm eventually was able to gather supporting documents and prepared Supplemental Evidence with 34 exhibits, and arranged them pursuant to the specific elements of Cancellation of Removal eligibility. We arranged the medical documents for each of the three daughters. We arranged all his physical presence documents according to the specific year they referred to, and filed them in person with the Cleveland Immigration Court. We also sent service in person with the Department of Homeland Security. There was no sense in mailing them – the hearing was the next day.

We then prepared the client for his hearing, worked overtime and went over questions several rounds for him and his three witnesses. We focused on the extreme and exceptional hardships his three US Citizen daughters and US Citizen wife would face.  He did not have enough documents as to his physical presence, so we made sure he establishes them through his testimony, the supporting letters that he submitted, and through the consistency of his answers with the witnesses.

At the Individual Hearing, we first made an oral request for a continuance. We explained we were only retained 7 days before, were ready to proceed with testimony, but requested that a continuance be granted if the case would be denied due to some technicality or lack of documentation that could be obtained in a reasonable amount of time. Testimony then followed and we questioned the alien extensively on the hardships his children and wife would face. Our client was prepared, was very consistent, and was honest in his answers. He was detailed with the specific medical issues of each of his daughters. He had a conviction for obstruction of justice but we made sure all the facts are on record to establish that his offense was within the petty offense exception for crimes of moral turpitude, which means despite the conviction, he is still eligible for Cancellation of Removal.

We then proceeded with his US Citizen wife, who also did a good job in her testimony regarding the hardships she and her daughters would face if our client was deported to Guatemala.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Judge granted Cancellation of Removal for our client. He once came illegally in July of 1998. He never had any status. He worked hard doing random work in factories and restaurants. He married a U.S. Citizen and had three US Citizen children.  A good person, father, and husband, who finally retained an attorney for his Individual Hearing 7 days before its scheduled date. Finally, after 12 years of hard work and perseverance, our client is now a permanent resident (green card holder) of the United States.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

{ 0 comments }