CASE: I-140 (EB-1C Category: Executives and Managers of Multinational Organizations)

EMPLOYER: Multinational Tire Corporation

BENEFICIARY: Korean

LOCATION: Akron, Ohio

Our client is a General Manager of a multinational tire corporation in Ohio.  He is from South Korea, and has worked for its parent company for 6 years in positions of increasing responsibility including that of Research and Development team manager. He came to the United States in January 2018 with an E-2 visa to work for current petitioner company (wholly-owned subsidiary of his previous employer).  He contacted our firm in August 2018, and discussed us his chances of getting a green card. Based on our client’s educational and professional background and his current position at the worksite, our office determined that he was clearly eligible for the EB-1C classification for his I-140 petition. Our client eventually retained us for his I-140 and subsequent I-485 adjustment of status application.

An employer can petition for its foreign employee under INA § 203(b)(1)(C) if it demonstrates the following: (C) Certain multinational executives and managers – An alien is described in this subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding the time of the alien’s application for classification and admission into the United States under this subparagraph, has been employed for at least 1 year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof and the alien seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render services to the same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial or executive.

According to the INA §101(a)(44), 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(44) and 8 C.F.R §204.5(j)(2), “executive capacity” means an assignment in an organization in which the employee primarily: (1) Directs the management of the organization or a component or function; (2) Establishes goals and policies; (3) Exercise wide latitude in discretionary decision making; and (4) Receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, board of directors or stockholders.

Also, above the mentioned statutes define “managerial capacity” as an assignment with the organization in which the employee personally: (1) Manages the organization, department, subdivision, function or component; (2) Supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional or managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the organization or department or subdivision of the organization; (3) Has authority to hire and fire or recommend personnel actions (if another directly supervises employees), or if no direct supervision, functions at a senior level; and (4) Exercises discretion over day-to-day operations of the activity or function.

After our office was retained, we prepared a thorough cover letter and obtained all necessary supporting documents from our client and the petitioning company. In our brief, we clearly demonstrated that our client met the requirements set forth in the INA §203(b)(1)(C).  First, the prospective U.S. employer (Petitioner-Company) has been doing business for at least 1 year. Second, the prospective employer (Petitioner) in the United States is the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation or other legal entity by which the alien was employed abroad.  Third, if the worker is already employed in the United States, he or she was employed outside the United States for at least 1 year in the 3 years preceding admission as a non-immigrant in an executive or managerial capacity by the petitioner or by its parent branch, subsidiary, or affiliate. Last, the alien is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity.

In this case, the Petitioner-company has been doing business for 28 years in the United States. In addition, Petitioner-Company is the wholly-owned subsidiary of its Korean parent company where our client was employed for 6 years. Moreover, our client was employed outside the U.S. for at least 1 year in the 3 years preceding admission as a non-immigrant in an Executive or Managerial Capacity by the Petitioner’s parent company in South Korea.  Our client served as a team manager and later became senior manager for the parent company. He personally supervised and controlled the work of other researchers and engineers for new types and models of tire developments, and was primarily responsible for the company’s various new tires. Lastly, our client is to be employed in the United States as a General Manager for the petitioner.

On the application package, we included a detailed job offer letter, employment verification letter from our client’s previous employer (parent company), an organization chart, and a dispatch order.  Also, we included evidence regarding the relationship between the Petitioner-Company and its Parent company in South Korea. The evidence included a copy of the certificate of ownership, a copy the business registration certificate, a copy of the approval for overseas investment, a copy of the annual report and consolidated financial statements.  The I-140 Petition was filed on November 16, 2018.  

However, on May 16, 2019, the USCIS Nebraska Service Center issued Request for Evidence (RFE). The RFE letter thoroughly requested our client to demonstrate the qualifying relationship between the parent company in South Korea and his current employer. Moreover, the USCIS requested our client to show whether he met the requirement of “one year managerial or executive position abroad.”

On the RFE response application package, we included a detailed job offer letter, employment verification letter from our client’s previous employer (parent company), and an organization chart.  Also, we included evidence regarding the relationship between the Petitioner-Company and its Parent company in South Korea. The evidence included a copy of the certificate of ownership, a copy the business registration certificate, a copy of the tax records, etc.  Our office filed the Response to RFE on August 5, 2019. Eventually, on August 26, 2019, the I-140 petition was approved. Now, our client can file the I-485 adjustment of status application based on the approved I-140 petition.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-821D Application for Consideration for Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals / I-765 Employment Authorization Document

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Mexican Client in Butler, IN

As our office explained before on our website, the USCIS issued a memorandum in August 2012 regarding deferred action of childhood arrivals cases.  According to the USCIS Deferred Action Memorandum issued in August 2012, an individual who meets the following criteria may apply for deferred action:

• Was under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
• Came to the U.S. before reaching his/her 16th birthday;
• Has continuously resided in the U.S. since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;
• Was physically present in the U.S. on June 15, 2012, and at the time of application to the USCIS;
• Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012;
• Is currently in school, has graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, has obtained a GED, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard or the U.S. Armed Forces; and
• Has not been convicted of a felony, a “significant misdemeanor,” three or more other misdemeanors, or does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety;

Our client initially came to the United States in August 1995 without inspection and admission through the U.S. / Mexico border when he was only 6 years old.

As of June 15, 2012, our client was twenty-three (23) years old.

Our client also finished high school in the United States in 2008.

Also, since his last entry to the United States in August 1995, our client never left the United States.

He was physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012 and has continuously resided here since August of 1995.

Our client has never been convicted of a felony, a “significant misdemeanor,” three or more other misdemeanors, and does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Accordingly, our client was eligible for this relief.

In July of 2019, he retained our office for the renewal of his DACA application again. Despite the elimination of the DACA program at that time, he was still eligible for the renewal. Our client sent us supporting documents that prove our client’s education history, physical presence in the United States, and his initial entry to the United States.  Our office also prepared Form I-821D and I-765, and drafted a detailed cover letter demonstrating why our client should merit this relief.

On July 26, 2019, our office filed his I-821D and I-765 to the USCIS.  Eventually, on September 3, 2019, the USCIS approved our client’s I-821D and I-765. His DACA status is extended to September 2021.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-140 (EB-2)

EMPLOYER: Public Schools District

BENEFICIARY: Filipina Speech Language Pathologist

LOCATION: Crosby, North Dakota

Our client has a current employer that was willing to petition her for a second-preference petition (I-140).  Our client has a master’s degree in speech language pathology, a valid North Dakota speech language pathologist license, and has worked for her current employer since March 2014. Based on our client’s education and work background, our office determined that she is eligible for EB-2 classification for her I-140 petition.  

Prior to filing PERM, our firm prepared the prevailing wage request, job order, advertisements, internal job posting, recruitment report, and all other steps which are important pre-PERM filing. Take note that the PERM application could be filed at least 60 days from the job posting date or 30 days from the last ad. Within a week from our retention, the prevailing wage request was filed.  After we obtained the PW determination, our office filed the job order. On January 29, 2019, we promptly filed PERM. Eventually, on April 26, 2019, the PERM Labor Certification was approved – an EB2 position for the Filipina beneficiary. 

We then proceeded with the I-140 Petition filing. We submitted the “ability to pay” letter for the I-140 petition application. We included the job offer letter, employee’s most recent W-2 record, and other necessary supporting documents.

The I-140 Petition was filed on May 28, 2019 via regular processing service. Eventually, on August 22, 2019, the I-140 EB2 Petition for our Filipina client was approved without any Request for Evidence (RFE). 

{ 0 comments }

CASE: PERM Labor Certification

EMPLOYER: Rehabilitation Center in Katy, TX 

BENEFICIARY: Filipina SM Network and Computer Systems Administrator in Malaysia

Our client has a prospective employer that is willing to petition her for a third-preference petition (I-140).  Our client has a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and currently works for IT consulting company in Malaysia. Based on our client’s education and work background, our office determined that she is clearly eligible for EB-3 classification for her I-140 petition.  Our client eventually retained us in April 2018.

Prior to filing PERM, our firm prepared the prevailing wage request, job order, advertisements, internal job posting, recruitment report, and all other steps which are important pre-PERM filing. Take note that the PERM application could be filed at least 60 days from the job posting date or 30 days from the last ad. Within a week from our retention, the prevailing wage request was filed.  After we obtained the PW determination, the job order was filed on September 27, 2018. On January 21, 2019, we promptly filed PERM. 

However, on May 24, 2019, the Department of Labor issued a request for audit. The DOL requested documents from Petitioner to determine whether the recruitment process was done properly. In response to the Audit request, our office prepared the response to Audit brief along with Employer’s declaration, notice of filing, and recruitment documentation on June 6, 2019.  

Eventually, on August 29, 2019, the PERM Labor Certification was approved – an EB3 position for the Filipina beneficiary. Our client can file the I-140 petition at any time.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-360 Petition

NATIONALITY: Indian

LOCATION: Wooster, OH

Our Canadian client came to the U.S. in September 2013. He entered the United States with B-2 visitor’s visa. In October 2017, he contacted our office to seek legal representation for his I-360 petition. According to his story, our client’s marital life was tough and he eventually was abused by his spouse.  

Our client experienced domestic violence and spousal abuse during his marriage. His wife physically and mentally abused our client after the inception of their marriage. Thus, we prepared and filed his I-360 petition, which included 32 exhibits and a detailed brief to the USCIS Vermont Service Center on December 12, 2017.  Eventually, on August 28, 2019, the USCIS Vermont Service Center approved our client’s I-360 petition.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Indian

LOCATION: Youngstown, OH

Our client came to the United States from India on a H-1B visa and has worked in the United States. He married a U.S. Citizen in January 2019 and retained our office on March 20, 2019 for his green card application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on April 3, 2019. 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 as well. On August 28, 2019, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our clients as well. Eventually, on the same day of the interview, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751

APPLICANT: Filipino

LOCATION: Brooklyn, NY

Our client contacted our office in June of 2018 regarding his I-751 application.

He is from the Philippines and he married a U.S. citizen in February 2016. Through his marriage, he obtained a 2-year conditional green card in August of 2016.  His conditional residency terminated in August 2018.

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 June 8, 2018, and our office prepared an I-751 application for our client.

On June 28, 2018, our office filed an I-751 application to the USCIS with multiple affidavits from his friends and family members, joint bank statements, joint taxes, utility bills, insurance policies, and photos of our client and his wife to demonstrate the bona fideness of their marriage.

Once 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 August 27, 2019, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application and our client received his 10-year green card which removed the conditions.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Iranian

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States from Iran with a B-2 visitor’s visa in November 2014. In 2015, he changed his status from B-2 to F-1.  He married a U.S. Citizen in August 24, 2018 and retained our office on April 29, 2019 for his green card application. Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on May 7, 2019.  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 as well. On August 26, 2019, our client was interviewed at Cleveland, Ohio USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our clients as well. Eventually, on August 28, 2019, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Green Card (Same Sex Marriage Case)

CLIENT: Filipino

LOCATION: Orlando, FL

Our client came to the United States from the Philippines on a J-1 Exchange Visitor’s visa in May 2000. After his J-1 program was completed, he remained in the United States. With our firm’s legal assistance, he obtained his J-1 visa waiver in October 2018.  He married his U.S. Citizen same-sex spouse in December 2017.

On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of “marriage” and “spouse” to apply only to heterosexual unions, by Section 3 of the defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013). After Windsor decision, the USCIS implemented a new policy that the USCIS officer must review immigration via petitions filed on behalf of a same-sex spouse in the same manner as those filed on behalf of an opposite-sex spouse. As long as a same-sex couple is married in a U.S. state that recognizes same-sex marriage, their marriage shall be considered a valid marriage under the immigration law. 

They married in Florida where the same-sex marriage is recognized. Our client contacted our office and retained us on September 20, 2018 for his I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application. Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application, together with all necessary supporting documents, on October 4, 2018. 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 via conference calls. On August 27, 2019, our client was interviewed at the Orlando, Florida USCIS office. The interview went well and his green card application was approved on the same day.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Asylum

CLIENT: Chinese

LOCATION: Sandusky, OH

Our client, a Chinese asylum seeker in Sandusky, OH, retained us on July 14, 2015 to help him with his asylum case. He came to the United States in January 2015 with a B-2 visitor’s visa from China. He wanted to seek asylum relief with the US Citizenship and Immigration Service.

While he was in China, he was persecuted and mistreated by the government based on his Christianity belief. He is scared to go back home to China, fearing that he will be persecuted again.

We helped him to prepare for his asylum application, going over several drafts until his claim was as detailed as possible. Names, addresses, dates, and all possible issues relevant to his asylum claim were addressed. We also asked him to provide supporting documents corroborating his claims. Our firm also did some research on articles pertaining to his particular claim, and the type of persecution that Chinese Christian would suffer.

The asylum application was filed on July 21, 2015 which was within one year of his entry to the United States.  Thereafter, the CIS issued an interview notice for his asylum case, scheduled for November 2, 2018 in Cleveland, OH USCIS Asylum Office. Prior to his interview, our office prepared him thoroughly for his case at our office to make sure he was able to address questions the asylum officer would ask. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office also accompanied our client at him interview. 

On August 12, 2019, the USCIS approved our client’s asylum case. He is now an asylee and will be eligible to apply for permanent resident status in one year. 

{ 0 comments }