CASE: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization)

APPLICANT: Ecuadorian

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client contacted us in March 2018 to seek legal representation for his naturalization and citizenship N-400 application. He came to the United States from Ecuador and obtained his green card in July 2013.

Once retained, his N-400 application was filed on April 3, 2018 with all supporting documents. Prior to his citizenship interview, our office prepared him at our office.  On July 13, 2018, our client appeared at the Cleveland, OH USCIS office for his naturalization interview. Our client answered all questions correctly and passed his naturalization and citizenship interview. Eventually, his application was approved on July 30, 2018. His oath taking is scheduled in which he will become a naturalized U.S. Citizen.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751

APPLICANT: Pakistani

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client contacted our office in January of 2017 regarding her I-751 application.

She is from Pakistan and she married a U.S. citizen in April 2014. Through her marriage, she obtained a 2-year conditional green card in January of 2015. Our office helped her in her green card process.  Her conditional residency terminated in January 2017.

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 on January 19, 2017 and our office prepared an I-751 application for our client with other supplemental exhibits.

On January 30, 2017, our office filed an I-751 application to the USCIS with multiple affidavits from her friends and family members, joint bank statements, utility bills, joint leasing documents, and photos of our client and her husband to demonstrate the bona fideness of their marriage.

Once the application was filed, the fingerprint notice was issued two weeks later. However, the USCIS issued the Request for Evidence (RFE) to demonstrate the bona fideness of our client’s marriage with her husband. We filed an extensive Response to RFE to the USCIS with more bona fide marital documents on July 2, 2018. Eventually, on July 23, 2018, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751

APPLICANT: Filipino

LOCATION: Oregon

Our client contacted our office in October of 2016 regarding his I-751 application.

He is from the Philippines and he married a U.S. citizen. Through his marriage, he obtained a 2-year conditional green card in April of 2015. Thus, his conditional residency terminated in April 2017.

To comply with immigration requirements, our client and her spouse had to file an I-751 Joint Petition to Remove Conditions. He retained our office on October 17, 2016, and our office prepared an I-751 application for our client with other supplemental exhibits.

On February 7, 2017, our office filed an I-751 application to the USCIS with multiple affidavits from his friends and family members, joint bank statements, utility bills, joint leasing documents, joint tax documents, and photos of our client and his spouse to demonstrate the bona fideness of their marriage.

Once the application was filed, the fingerprint notice was issued two weeks later. Eventually, on July 6, 2018, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application without any Request for Evidence (RFE).

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Fiancé Visa

PETITIONER: US Citizen in Houston, TX

BENEFICIARY: Filipina

PETITION FILED: June 5, 2017

PETITION APPROVED: January 2, 2018

K-1 VISA APPROVED: April 6, 2018

Our client, a US Citizen Petitioner, has known his fiancée since 2016. They started their relationship, and he visited the Philippines in September 2016.  In February 2017, our client went back to the Philippines to see his fiancée. They got engaged and our client decided to file a fiancé petition for his fiancée.  He retained our firm to file a fiancé petition for her on May 17, 2017.

After retention, we informed our client about the necessary supporting documents to demonstrate the bona fide nature of their relationship. We helped her and her fiancé draft letters in support of the fiancé petition, and we filed the petition on June 5, 2017.

On January 2, 2018, the I-129F fiancée petition was approved. On April 6, 2018, our client’s fiancé appeared at the U.S. Embassy in Manila, Philippines for her K-1 visa interview. The interview went well, and the U.S. Embassy issued her K-1 visa. With the issued K-1 visa, our client’s fiancée came to the United States and married our client in May 2018. She already filed her adjustment of status application to the USCIS.

{ 0 comments }

CASE:   I-601A Hardship Waiver of Inadmissibility

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Mexican

LOCATION: Dayton, Ohio

Our client came to the United States from Mexico in April 2007 without inspection and admission. He married his U.S. citizen wife in April 2016. After they got married, his U.S. Citizen wife filed an I-130 petition for him in June 2016. This I-130 petition was approved on July 29, 2016.

However, our client cannot file for adjustment of status application due to his ground of inadmissibility (entry without inspection and admission). He needs a waiver of inadmissibility to become a green card holder.

Under current law, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are not eligible to adjust status in the United States must travel abroad and obtain an immigrant visa. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence while in the United States must obtain a waiver of inadmissibility to overcome the unlawful presence bars under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act before they can return to the United States

In 2013, the USCIS announced of new policy called the provisional unlawful presence waiver. Beginning March 4, 2013, certain immigrant visa applicants who are spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens (immediate relatives) can apply for provisional unlawful presence waivers before they leave the United States. The provisional unlawful presence waiver process allows individuals, who only need a waiver of inadmissibility for unlawful presence, to apply for a waiver in the United States.

The new process is expected to shorten the time U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives while those family members are obtaining immigrant visas to become lawful permanent residents of the United States.

INA § 212(i) provides for a discretionary waiver of the entry without inspection inadmissibility ground. To qualify for the waiver, the alien must establish that his or her US Citizen spouse would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission. INA § 212(i)(1). In addition to the equities presented, the USCIS may consider the nature of the inadmissibility ground.

There is a seminal BIA case that deals with this waiver.  In Matter of Cervantes, 22 I & N Dec. 560 (BIA 1999), the BIA identified the factors to be considered in determining whether a qualifying relative would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission.  Those factors include: the presence of LPR or USC family ties both within and outside the United States; the conditions in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties to that country; the financial impact of departure from the United States; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to the unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate.

Our client’s I-601A application had a good chance since our client’s U.S. Citizen wife suffers from a great degree of medical hardship. In the I-601A brief and supporting documents, our office included extensive medical reports of his wife.  We argued that if he was removed from the United States, extreme hardship to his wife is clearly foreseeable and evident. His wife has ongoing medical hardships and she would not be able to take care of her own needs and the bulk of their family chores, most importantly taking care of their child. Also, it would be extremely difficult for her to get the same level of therapy and satisfactory access to medical services in Mexico in case she joins our client there.

In our brief, we also argued that our client and his wife have maintained strong family ties in the United States, that his wife will have difficulty in finding the same level of employment in Mexico, and that his U.S. citizen child and his wife will face extreme emotional difficulties if he is removed.

On September 19, 2017, we filed the I-601A waiver application which included the brief in support, his wife’s extensive medical examination records, and other documents that demonstrated hardship to his wife if he is removed from the United States. Eventually, his I-601A waiver was approved on May 22, 2018. Now, he can file packet 3 and 4 here in the United States, and would go to Mexico shortly to get his immigrant visa.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: PERM Labor Certification    
EMPLOYER: Chinese Restaurant
BENEFICIARY: Chinese Cook in Venezuela
LOCATION: Ohio

Our client is a Chinese restaurant in Ohio. They do have a prospective employee from Venezuela and they were willing to petition him for a skilled worker, third-preference petition (I-140). Their prospective employee has more than 2 years of experience as a Chinese cook. After talking to our client, our firm concluded that they can petition him as a Chinese Specialty Cook. Our client eventually retained us on January 27, 2017.

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 PERM could be filed at least 60 days from the job posting date or 30 days from the last ad. On February 10, 2017, the prevailing wage request was filed.  After we got the PW determination, our office filed the job order on July 14, 2017. On November 3, 2017, we promptly filed PERM. Eventually, on April 19, 2018, the PERM Labor Certification was approved – an EB3 position for the Chinese beneficiary. Now our client can file the I-140 petition.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

NATIONALITY: Dominican

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client is from Dominican Republic who came to the U.S. on a B-2 Visitor’s Visa in July 2014.  In November 2016, our client married her current U.S. citizen husband. In December 2016, they filed her green card application. However, the USCIS denied her green card application due to insufficient evidence.

She retained our office for her green card application on May 8, 2017.  Our firm prepared and filed the Adjustment of Status Application on March 12, 2018 along with the approved I-130 petition.  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 at our office as well. On May 24, 2018, our client was interviewed at Cleveland USCIS office. Attorney JP Sarmiento also accompanied our clients as well.  Eventually, on the same day of her interview, her green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-140 (Derivative Beneficiary) and Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Nepalese

LOCATION: Omaha, Nebraska

Our client retained us to apply for her green card application. Our client was born and raised in Nepal. Her husband became the beneficiary of an approved EB-2 I-140 petition from his employer and got his green card in May 2017 through our firm’s legal assistance. She married her husband in September 2016 while her husband’s green card application was pending.  Thus, she was qualified as a derivative applicant. She retained our office in October 2016.

Once retained, our firm prepared and filed the Adjustment of Status Application on October 3, 2016 for our client.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and a work permit all came on time. However, on April 7, 2017, the USCIS issued Request for Evidence for our client and requested her to submit documents regarding her maintenance of status in the U.S. and documentations regarding bona fide nature of her marriage to her husband. On April 17, 2017, our office filed the Response for RFE to USCIS. In June 2017, the USCIS schedule our client’s adjustment of status interview at Omaha USCIS Field Office.

Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our client through conference calls.  On July 26, 2017, our client was interviewed at the Omaha USCIS Field office in Nebraska. Nevertheless, her case was remained pending until May of this year. Finally, the USCIS issued another Request for Evidence (RFE) and requested our client to submit the updated medical record (I-693). Our client submitted the updated I-693 to USCIS promptly. Eventually, on June 25, 2018, her green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: PERM Labor Certification    
EMPLOYER: Temperature Control Services
BENEFICIARY: Ecuadorian
LOCATION: New York

Our client is a company which specializes in providing and installing automatic temperature control systems in commercial and industrial buildings. They do have an employee from Ecuador and they were willing to petition him for a skilled worker, third-preference petition (I-140). Their employee has more than 2 years of experience as a HVAC Technician. After talking to our client, our firm concluded that they can petition him as a BAS/HVAC Controls Technician. Our client eventually retained us in May 2017.

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 PERM could be filed at least 60 days from the job posting date or 30 days from the last ad. On June 2, 2017, the prevailing wage request was filed.  After we got the PW determination, our office filed the job order on August 21, 2017. On October 27, 2017, we promptly filed PERM.

However, on April 19, 2018, 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 May 16, 2018.  

Eventually, on July 11, 2018, the PERM Labor Certification was approved – an EB3 position for the Ecuadorian beneficiary. Now our client can file the I-140 petition.

{ 0 comments }

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

EMPLOYER: Multinational Travel Company

BENEFICIARY: Filipino

LOCATION: Las Vegas, NV

Our client is the president of a multinational travel company in Las Vegas.  He is from the Philippines, and he has worked for the parent company as an Executive. He came to the United States in January 2015 on an a L-1A visa to work for the current petitioner company (wholly-owned subsidiary of his previous employer).  He contacted our firm in August 2017, and discussed with us his chances of getting a green card. Based on our client’s education and professional background and his current position at the worksite, our office determined that he was eligible for the EB-1C classification. 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 3 years in the United States. In addition, Petitioner-Company is the wholly-owned subsidiary of its Filipino 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 the Philippines.  Our client served as an executive for the parent company. Lastly, our client is to be employed in the United States as a president 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 the Philippines. The evidence included a copy of the certificate of ownership, a copy of the articles of incorporation, a copy the business registration certificate, a copy of the financial statements.  The I-140 Petition was filed on September 11, 2017. On July 11, 2018, the I-140 petition was approved with no Requests for Evidence.

{ 0 comments }