CASE: Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Filipino

LOCATION: Florida

POTENTIAL ISSUES PRE-RETENTION: Immigrant Intent

Our firm was consulted on June 8, 2010. Our client got married to a U.S. Citizen on December 6, 2009, returned to the Philippines, then came back here as a tourist. They originally met in the Philippines when her husband was stationed there for a few years due to work. When our client last came to the U.S. as a tourist, despite being married to a U.S. Citizen, at that point they intended to actually go back to the Philippines because her US Citizen husband’s employer may start another term and contract with their client in the Philippines. Even the alien beneficiary, who has been working for a Philippine employer, was in the States on a leave of absence, and was not terminated yet by her company. There clearly was no immigrant intent, though an officer may suspect that there was due to her entry as a tourist, application for adjustment of status months later, and her marriage to a U.S. Citizen prior to her most recent entry. Our firm filed the Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on July 9, 2010. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. There was no Request for Evidence. On September 28, 2010, we prepared our clients for the interview for over an hour, specifically addressing the fact that she had no immigrant intent on her entry, and highlighting their evidence in support of the lack of immigrant intent through factors such as her return ticket, leave of absence, husband’s employer’s contract with a Philippine company etc. On October 6, 2010, our client was interviewed in Jacksonville, Florida. That same day, the officer told them that he was granting the petition and the green card 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. 

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: Jail Case

CLIENT: Mexican

LOCATION: Ohio

CLIENT’S RESIDENCE: New Jersey

Our firm was retained on September 29, 2010 to have a Mexican national released on bond. He was detained in Seneca County Jail in Tiffin Ohio. Our contact was his employer in New Jersey. Prior to retention, we already told the contact what we needed. Our client came in the United States illegally in March 1999, had no criminal records, was employed, had a permanent home in the U.S., and had two U.S. Citizen children. Upon retention, we immediately contacted the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and explained that our client was not a flight risk. We showed documents including his bank statement, proof of lease, and birth certificates of his U.S. Citizen children. We explained that our client would be prima facie eligible for Cancellation of Removal. The next day, ICE granted our client’s release on a $5000 bond. We immediately spoke with our client’s contact in New Jersey and guided him in the process of posting a bond. We did our own research to look for specific bond companies in New Jersey to aid our client. Our office had to call ICE and the bond company several time to coordinate the information and make sure systems were updated regarding the bond posting. Our client’s contact was hoping he gets released before the weekend, or else he would have to spend an extra two days in jail. On October 1, 2010 Friday, at around 1:45pm, our client was released. He currently is in New Jersey awaiting his hearing where he would apply for cancellation for removal.

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 / I-485

POTENTIAL ISSUES PRE-RETENTION: Immigrant Intent

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Canadian

LOCATION: Dallas Texas

Our client last entered the United States on January 23, 2010. She has been going back and forth from Canada to the U.S. to visit his boyfriend. She had no intention to marry her husband preceding her last entry but a few weeks after her last entry, her husband proposed to her and they got married. It is important to show that there was no immigrant intent on your last entry and in this case, there was none. The officer may have doubts though due to the closeness of the marriage date to the date of entry. Our firm was retained to process the paperwork and prepare the couple for the interview. The I-130 and I-485 was filed on June 28, 2010. The receipt notices and fingerprint appointments were issued immediately and on August 31, 2010, our client received her work permit. Interview notices were issued on August 13, 2010 and our office prepared them prior to the interview, specifically addressing the immigrant intent issue. On September 20, 2010, they went to their interview in Dallas and the officer right after informed them that their case was to be approved. The CIS officially issued the I-485 approval on September 22, 2010, less than 3 months from filing the application and petition.

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-90

POTENTIAL ISSUES PRE-RETENTIONS: “Mortgage-Fraud” California Statute: Crime of Moral Turpitude or Not? Deportable Offense or Not?

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Filipino

LOCATION: California

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) at section 237 allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to deport someone who has committed a crime involving moral turpitude, commonly referred to as a CIMT, if the conviction occurred within five (5) years after admission and the conviction was for a crime for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed.

Our client’s green card was about to expire, and she wanted to apply for an extension, but she was hesitant due to a criminal conviction she had. She was convicted under California law for what her attorney termed as “mortgage fraud”.

Our firm did research on the specific California statute and analyzed it under Crime of Moral Turpitude immigration law. We explained that a line of cases view convictions under any statute related to fraud as a CIMT, which can potentially make her deportable. We also found that some “fraud-like” statutes are not actually fraud, but could be classified as “regulatory violations”, which are not CIMTs. If the CIS deems her conviction as a CIMT, not only will the green card extension be denied, she also would be deportable.

After extensive research and analysis, our firm found that we had a very argument in classifying her conviction as a regulatory violation and not fraud, and thus she does not have a CIMT. We filed the I-90 extension in July 22, 2010. Our client was fingerprinted and a background check was conducted for her. Upon review of her case, the CIS deemed that she indeed does not have a CIMT and is not deportable. Her I-90 was approved on September 20, 2010 and her green card was extended for ten 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: Removal Proceedings, Adjustment of Status

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Senegalese

LOCATION: Ohio

Our client entered the U.S. using his brother’s passport back in 2001. He presented this at the airport customs and was let in by the officer. The officer checked the passport and asked a few questions to our client, as is customary, and he was able to enter despite using his brother’s passport.

Several years later, our client married a U.S. Citizen. Knowing than an I-601 hardship waiver was needed for his green card application due to his fraudulent entry with his brother’s passport, he filed everything together with the 601 waiver. The I-130 petition was approved, which means that the government believed the marriage was in good faith. The green card application though was denied, as well as the I-601 waiver. The denial pointed out that there was not enough hardship to meet the standards for the 601 waiver.

An appeal was filed to the AAO for the 601 waiver and after almost a year, the 601 was approved. However, our client was issued a Notice to Appear and was scheduled for a removal hearing with the Cleveland Immigration Court.

Our office was retained to represent him for removal proceedings. Days before the hearing, the government changed the Notice to Appear and alleged him as an “alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled” under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i). With this charge, even with the approval of the I-601 hardship waiver, our client would not be eligible for his green card. The government’s position was that our client’s entry with his brother’s passport was not an “admission” and that since he was not admitted, he can’t be eligible to adjust status as a permanent resident under INA § 245A.

At the Master hearing, we denied that allegation and the charge of removability. The Judge then set the case for a hearing on the issue. There were a line of cases addressing the issue, with arguments for both the government’s position and our position. Matter of Areguillin and Matter of Orozco were the two main cases at that time. Matter of Areguillin held that it’s the “procedural regularity” of the entry which results in “admission”.  The Orozco case though held that an entry on someone’s passport, such as our case, cannot be an admission, and thus people in this situation would not be able to adjust to permanent resident status despite an I-601 waiver.

Between the Master hearing and the Individual Hearing, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued an interim decision, Matter of Quilantan, which was on point with our case. It reaffirmed Areguillin in that procedural regularity is all that’s needed to be admitted in a particular status, and not the substance of the entry. Thus, someone who entered through customs, was questioned, inspected, and eventually let in despite a fake passport is considered “admitted”.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, we submitted documents to Court and to the government pertaining to our position that our client is in fact admitted and thus, with the waiver of inadmissibility granted despite our client’s fraudulent entry, should be eligible to to apply for permanent residency. At the hearing itself, we had a pre-hearing discussion with the government in which of Matter of Quilantan was discussed. The government agreed with our position and decided to terminate the case without even going through a hearing. The Immigration Judge discussed the issues and eventually terminated removal proceedings for our client.

Jurisdiction for his green card application now goes back to the USCIS in Columbus, Ohio, where his green card should be issued soon.

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-129F Fiance Petition and Fiance Visa

PETITIONER: Originally from Russia and current US Naturalized Citizen

APPLICANT: Russian

Our client, the Petitioner, met his Russian fiancé online and they vacationed in Thailand early this year. A few months after he came back to the States and his fiancé, back in Russia, he retained our firm to get a visa for his fiancé. We informed him of all supporting documents we would need, helped him and his fiancé draft a letter in support of the fiancé petition, and filed the petition on March 18, 2010. On June 22, 2010, the I-129F fiancé petition was approved. Our client’s fiancé was then scheduled for a fiancé immigrant visa interview in early September 2010 at the US Embassy in Moscow. We prepared all forms and supporting documents for her interview and sent them by international mail to Moscow. She was also prepared prior to the appointment. On September 2, 2010, our client passed her fiancé visa interview. She would be reunited with our client in the U.S. soon and would get married within 90 days of her entry. From there she can apply for 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: I-130 / I-485

APPLICANT: Filipino

LOCATION: Nevada

ISSUES: Immigrant Intent

Our client was married to a U.S. Citizen before she entered the United States as a tourist. On her last entry, she intended to visit and spend Christmas with his husband, and then come back to the Philippines and get petitioned over there. She even had her return ticket. When she was at the port of entry in Las Vegas, she was inspected and admitted as a tourist, and she was honest in telling the officer that she was visiting her husband. No other questions and she was let in. After a few months with her husband, they both decided to pursue adjustment of status here and first consulted with our firm. We informed them prior to retention that immigrant intent will be the major issue. We had to prove despite her marriage in the Philippines before entry on a tourist visa that her intent on that last entry was to visit, and not to eventually immigrate. They understood and were firm on their case – the beneficiary really did not intend to immigrate when she last entered the U.S. Our firm was retained pro bono and the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status application were filed. Within 60 days our client got her work permit. Prior to their interview, our firm prepared both husband and wife for the interview. We focused on the bona fide marriage and immigrant intent issues. On August 18, 2010, both were interviewed at the Las Vegas CIS office. They both did well and the officer gave our client a stamped approval at the conclusion of the interview. She will receive her green card in a week.

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: N-400

APPLICANT: Slovakian

LOCATION: Ohio

ISSUES: Permanent Residency Based on Marriage; DUI within the past year

N-400 on behalf of Slovakian filed about three years after he obtained his permanent residency based on marriage. Good marriage, and major issue seem to be the DUI within the past year, which may affect the good moral character requirement which is essential in naturalization applications. The application was filed on April 19, 2010 with evidence of bona fide marriage. As to the criminal record, we argued that despite the DUI, our client does not have any other character issues, and is thus of good moral character for the past three years and is eligible for citizenship. The applicant was prepared by our office prior to the interview in Cleveland, and he was accompanied on July 9, 2010 at the Cleveland CIS office. Certified copies of the criminal record was also submitted. On August 5, 2010 his N-400 was approved. His oath taking is scheduled for August 20, 2010 in which he will be a U.S. Citizen.

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: Hospital
BENEFICIARY: Physician / General Surgeon, Filipino
LOCATION: Pennsylvania

H-1B filed on behalf of a hospital in Pennsylvania for a Filipino physician / general surgeon on May 5, 2010. No Requests for Evidence with the filing and the Petitioner did not opt for premium processing. The case was approved on July 12, 2010. The H-1B is good from October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2013.

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-751 Late Filing For Good Cause Approval
ISSUES: Late Filing; Establishing Good Cause for Failure to File
LOCATION: Boston, Massachusetts

Our client is a Filipino national living in Boston who was on a 2-year conditional green card. She got her green card based on a bona fide marriage with her U.S. Citizen husband. She and her husband jointly filed an I-751 to remove conditions on a green card prior to its expiration in July 2009. This was in order to get her 10-year green card. However, as they were not represented by counsel, she missed the requirement of having to  provide the biometrics fee for her daughter, who was also a conditional resident as a derivative. In early August 2009, after the expiration date of the 2-year conditional green card, the application was returned since they missed the biometrics fee. Since the letter appeared to only request for the fee, they responded  and re-filed the application with the addition of the requested biometrics fee without any explanation for the “late filing”. As mentioned, the conditional residence status expired in late July. The checks were cashed and they were eventually issued with a receipt notice and fingerprint appointment. Everything it seemed went well as they received letters from the Immigration Service stating that their status was extended for a year while the I-751 was pending. However, in January 2010, the I-751 was denied due to “late filing”. Our office was consulted after this and we suggested a re-file of the I-751 with a letter and supporting documents arguing that there was good cause for failure to file. We argued that the August 2010 letter appeared to be a Request for Evidence and that it is reasonable for a couple with no legal representation to think there was no need to provide an argument for “late filing” when they re-filed the I-751. We also attached proof of bona fide marriage and cited the specific law which allows for this late filing. On June 27, 2010, the I-751 was finally approved and our client’s 10-year green card was issued.

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 }