CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

NATIONALITY: Indian                                                                                                        

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client is from India who came to the U.S. on an F-1 student visa. He completed his Bachelor’s program in Cleveland, Ohio.  In December 2016, our client married his current U.S. citizen wife.  He retained our office in January 2017 for his green card application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on February 8, 2017. 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 10, 2017, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland Ohio USCIS office. Attorney and Partner Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office also accompanied our clients as well. Eventually, on May 18, 2017, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Change of Status from B-2 to F-2

CLIENT: Indian

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came from India on a valid B-2 visa in April 2016. She came here to see her husband who was pursuing his studies in the United States as an F-1 student. Later, she decided to stay in the United States with his wife as F-2, a dependent of an F-1 visa holder. She filed her I-539 change of status application to the USCIS in September 2016. However, she received a Request for Evidence from the USCIS on January 18, 2017. She retained our office for the response to RFE for her case on January 26, 2017.  

Once retained, we helped our client obtain supporting documents for the response to RFE. We prepared the response brief along with evidence to demonstrate that she has properly maintained her B-2 status, did not have intention to file F-2 when she first came, and why she wants to change her status from B-2 to F-2. We filed Response to RFE application along with supporting documents to USCIS on February 9, 2017. Eventually, on February 27, 2017, the Change of Status was approved. Our client is now on F-2 and can stay with her husband in the United States until his studies finishes.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: J-2 Waiver of Two-Year Foreign Residency Requirement Post-Divorce
NATIONALITY: Indian
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client is a citizen of India who came to the U.S. on a J-2 Visa in 2006.  She came with her husband who held a J-1 Visa as a researcher.  Both were subject to the two-year foreign residency requirement. While she was J-2, she changed her status to J-1 after she was employed. She obtained her I-612 (J-1 waiver) for her J-1 program when she changed her status from J-1 to H-1B later. Unfortunately, while they are residing in the United States, her marriage did not work out well. Eventually, she got divorced from her ex-husband in 2012. 

In 2015, her Eb-1 I-140 petition was approved by the USCIS. Our client filed her I-485 adjustment of status along with her approved I-140 and I-612. However, the USCIS issued Request for Evidence and asked her to submit advisory opinion for her J-2 program. She applied for the advisory opinion to the U.S. Department of State, and in November 2016, the Department informed our client that she is still subject to the two year foreign residency requirement for her J-2 time.

After she found out that she needs a J-2 waiver, our client contacted our office in December 2016. She retained our firm to do her J-2 waiver on December 13, 2016. On December 14, 2016 the J-2 Waiver (DS-3035) 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.  Eventually, on January 23, 2017, the DOS recommended to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) that our client be granted a waiver. Finally, the USCIS issued I-612 waiver approval notice on March 30, 2017.  Now, our client can re-file an adjustment of status application (I-485) for her green card with the approved I-140 petition and I-612 waiver.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751

APPLICANT: Indian

LOCATION: Long Island, NY

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

He is from India and he married a U.S. citizen in June 2013. Through his marriage, he obtained a 2-year conditional green card in March 2014.  His conditional residency was terminated in March 2016.

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 January 4, 2016 and our office prepared an I-751 application for our client with bona fide marriage evidence.

On January 11, 2016, our office filed an I-751 application to the USCIS with multiple affidavits from his friends and family members, a copy of birth certificate of their child, joint bank statements, joint tax records, utility bills, joint lease, and photos of our client and his wife to demonstrate the bona fideness of their marriage.

There was no RFE issuance or interview request for our client’s I-751 application. As a result, on January 25, 2017, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application and our client received his 10-year green card.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: H-1B Visa Petition

PETITIONER: IT Consulting Company in Jacksonville, FL

BENEFICIARY: Indian Systems Analyst in Charlotte, NC

Our client is an IT Consulting Company located in Jacksonville, FL.  They contacted our office in the middle of February last year to seek legal assistance for a possible H-1B petition for their foreign employee.

The beneficiary obtained his Bachelor’s degree in Information Technology in Belgium. Beneficiary is currently working in the United States under L-1 status. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is a Systems Analyst which we argued qualifies as a specialty occupation.

Upon retention, our office prepared and eventually filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on March 31, 2016 via regular processing. This H-1B petition was selected after the lottery.

However, on September 29, 2016, the USCIS issued Request for Evidence (RFE) for our client’s H-1B petition. USCIS requested Petitioner to submit additional evidence to establish that the proffered position to the beneficiary qualified as a “Specialty Occupation”, plus additional questions about the “in-house” nature of the employment. Moreover, the RFE requested our client to prove the Beneficiary’s qualification is sufficient to work as a systems analyst.

We gathered supporting documents from both the Petitioner and Beneficiary and did research on the industry, focusing on similarly sized businesses, to demonstrate that a bachelor’s degree is commonly required for this position. We also provided in-house employment proof.

In the response brief, our office argued that the degree requirement is common to this industry in parallel positions among similar organizations.  We provided evidence that the position of Systems Analyst or Computer Systems Analyst is a common position required by similarly sized IT consulting company.  Also, we provided evidence that Petitioner’s competitors normally require degrees in a specific specialty for closely related positions like that of Systems Analyst.  Moreover, our office asserted that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. Furthermore, we included several professional evaluation letters for Beneficiary’s degree and previous work experience to demonstrate that he is qualified. Other documents pertaining to an in-house project was also submitted.

Our office filed a detailed Response to RFE brief with many exhibits to the USCIS Vermont Service Center on December 19, 2016.  Eventually, our client’s H-1B application was approved on January 12, 2017. Now, the beneficiary can work for the Petitioner until August 2019.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization)

APPLICANT: Indian

LOCATION: Ohio

Our client contacted us in April 2016 to seek legal representation for his naturalization and citizenship N-400 application. He came to the United States from India and obtained his green card in September 1984.

Once retained, his N-400 application was filed on May 3, 2016 with all supporting documents. Prior to his citizenship interview, our office prepared him. On November 28, 2016, our client appeared at the Cleveland, OH USCIS office for his naturalization interview. Attorney JP Sarmiento from our office accompanied our client as well. Our client answered all questions correctly and passed his naturalization and citizenship interview. Eventually, his application was approved on November 30, 2016. His oath taking is scheduled in which he will become a naturalized U.S. Citizen.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: H-1B Visa Petition

PETITIONER: IT Consulting Company in Jacksonville, FL

BENEFICIARY: Indian Systems Analyst in India

Our client is an IT Consulting Company located in Jacksonville, FL.  They contacted our office in the middle of February this year to seek legal assistance for a possible H-1B petition for their foreign employee.

The beneficiary obtained his Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science in India. Beneficiary is currently residing at India. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is a Systems Analyst which we argued qualifies as a specialty occupation.

Upon retention, our office prepared and eventually filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on March 31, 2016 via regular processing. This H-1B petition was selected after the lottery.

However, on September 13, 2016, the USCIS issued Request for Evidence (RFE) for our client’s H-1B petition. USCIS requested Petitioner to submit additional evidence to establish that the proffered position to the beneficiary qualified as a “Specialty Occupation”, plus additional questions about the “in-house” nature of the employment.

We gathered supporting documents from both the Petitioner and Beneficiary and did research on the industry, focusing on similarly sized businesses, to demonstrate that a bachelor’s degree is commonly required for this position. We also provided in-house employment proof.

In the response brief, our office argued that the degree requirement is common to this industry in parallel positions among similar organizations.  We provided evidence that the position of Systems Analyst or Computer Systems Analyst is a common position required by similarly sized IT consulting company.  Also, we provided evidence that Petitioner’s competitors normally require degrees in a specific specialty for closely related positions like that of Systems Analyst.  Moreover, our office asserted that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. Other documents pertaining to an in-house project was also submitted.

Our office filed a detailed Response to RFE brief with many exhibits to the USCIS Vermont Service Center on November 23, 2016.  Eventually, our client’s H-1B application was approved on December 12, 2016. Now, the beneficiary can apply for an H-1B visa at the U.S. Embassy in India, and upon the issuance of visa, he can work for the Petitioner.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-140 / EB-11 (Alien of extraordinary ability)

CLIENT: Indian Chemist

LOCATION: Massachusetts

Our client contacted us in December 2016 about the possibility of getting an immigrant visa through the EB-11 category. He is an internationally well-known chemist and is currently working as a researcher in Boston, MA.  Our client has written numerous internationally recognized scholarly articles in his field of endeavor.  However, he filed his EB-11 I-140 petition by himself previously, and got a denial. Upon review of his credentials and qualifications, our office determined that he was definitely qualified for the EB-11 category, an alien of extraordinary ability.

According to the INA Section 203(b) states, in pertinent part, that:

1. Priority workers – visas shall first be made available… to qualified immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following sub-paragraphs (A) through (C):

1. Aliens with extraordinary – an alien is described in this sub-paragraph if-

1. The alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletes which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation,
2. The alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability, and
3. The alien’s entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the United States.

USCIS has consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability.  See H.R. 723 101st Cong.2d Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991).  The term “extraordinary ability” refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Id. And 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2).

The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field.  Such acclaim and achievements must be established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major international recognized award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of evidence:

1. Documentation of the alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor;

1. Documentation of the alien’s membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields;

1. Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the alien’s work in the field for which classification is sought.  Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation;

1. Evidence of the alien’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification is sought;

1. Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field;

1. Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media;

1. Evidence of the display of the alien’s work in the field at an artistic exhibitions or showcases;

1. Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation;

1. Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or

1. Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales.

After the review of our client’s credentials and qualifications, we determined that our client meets 3 of the 10 categories. Our client has made original scientific contributions of significance to the field of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, in particular in the areas of cardiovascular diseases and imaging, cancer research, neurological disorders, and pharmaceutical sciences. He has authorship of scholarly articles in his professional field of endeavor. Lastly, our client has participated as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification is sought.

Our office prepared a 36-page brief for our client’s EB-11 filing. Our client also obtained 7 letters of recommendation from internationally well-known scholars in his field of endeavor. Our office also included his record of publications, citations, conference proceedings and invited talks, journal reviewer invitation evidence and other materials to show that he is an alien of extraordinary ability in plant engineering research. His EB-11 I-140 application contained 90 exhibits.

Our office filed his I-140 (EB-11) petition to the USCIS Texas Service Center via regular processing on May 25, 2016. Eventually, without any RFE, the USCIS Texas Service Center approved his I-140 self-petition on November 23, 2016.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751 / Waiver of the Joint Waiver Requirement

APPLICANT: Indian

LOCATION: Ohio

Our client contacted our office in early September of 2014 regarding her potential I-751 filing. She came to the United States from India and she married a U.S. Citizen (her ex-husband) in July 2013.

Through her marriage, she was able to obtain a 2-year conditional green card in March of 2014. Thus, her conditional residency terminated in March 2016.

Unfortunately, their marriage ended in October 2014. Our client experienced a lot of difficulties during her marriage with her ex-husband. Thus, our client could not file the I-751 application jointly with her ex-husband.

Once retained, we requested a waiver because our client entered into the marriage in good faith, but the marriage was terminated through divorce or annulment before they can file a joint petition. We focused on the supporting documents that she can show and helped her draft an extensive affidavit about their marriage, and why it ended the way it did.

On October 15, 2014, our office filed the I-751 application with various supporting documents (over 26 exhibits and an affidavit over 7 pages) to demonstrate our client’s bona fide marriage with her ex-husband.  

In October 2016, the USCIS scheduled an I-751 interview for our client.

Prior to the interview, our office thoroughly prepared our client at our office and informed them of potential issues at the interview.

On October 13, 2016, our client was interviewed for her I-751 application at the USCIS Cleveland, OH Field Office.  Attorney JP Sarmiento from our office accompanied our client.  The interview was very extensive.  Nevertheless, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application on November 9, 2016. Now, she has her ten-year green card.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

NATIONALITY: Indian                                                                                                        

LOCATION: Cincinnati, OH

Our client is from India who came to the U.S. on a J-1 Exchange Visitor’s Visa in May 2007. After his J-1 status expired, he remained in the United States. His J-1 program was not subject to the INA 212(e) two year foreign residency requirement. In February 2016, our client married his current U.S. citizen wife.  He retained our office on May 25, 2016 for his green card application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on July 5, 2016.  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 October 24, 2016, our client was interviewed at Cincinnati Ohio USCIS office. Eventually, on October 25, 2016, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }