CASE: Asylee Adjustment of Status
CLIENT: Chinese
LOCATION: Cleveland Heights, OH

Our client came to the United States from China and, she was granted asylum in July 2018 by the USCIS. 

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an asylee may apply for lawful permanent resident status after he or she has been physically present in the United States for a period of one year after the date he or she was granted asylum status. Around August 2019, one year after she got her asylee status in the United States, our client contacted our office again and sought legal assistance for her adjustment of status.  We prepared and filed her I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on September 3, 2019. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notice and fingerprint appointment all came on time.

Eventually, on March 10, 2020, the USCIS approved our client’s Adjustment of Status application without the interview. She is now a permanent resident of the United States.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-485 based on Approved I-140 (EB-2)

APPLICANT: Chinese Nurse Practitioner

LOCATION: Houston, Texas

Our client is a nurse practitioner from China, who is currently working at a large hospital which was willing to petition her for a second-preference petition (I-140). She has maintained her status as an H-1B visa holder in the United States.  She had an approved I-140 petition which was filed by her current employer and this I-140 petition’s priority date was December 31, 2007.

In July 2016, she contacted our office and retained us for her I-485 adjustment of status application. Our office filed an I-485 adjustment of status application for our client on July 22, 2016. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices and fingerprint appointment came on time.

Eventually, on September 22, 2016, the USCIS Texas Service Center approved our client’s adjustment of status application. She is now a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

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

CLIENT: Chinese

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client contacted us in May 2014 about the possibility of getting an immigrant visa through the EB-11 category. He is an internationally known Pianist and is currently working as a pianist in the Cleveland area.  Our client has received multiple international awards and has appeared in numerous recitals in several cities in the world.  Also, has performed at the Carnegie Hall in New York City,  and has been published in publications such as the Plain Dealer. Upon review of his credentials and qualifications, our office determined that he was 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):

(A) Aliens with extraordinary – an alien is described in this sub-paragraph if-

(i)                 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,

(ii)               The alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability, and

(iii)             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. 723 101^st 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:

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

(ii)               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;

(iii)             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;

(iv)             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;

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

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

(vii)           Evidence of the display of the alien’s work in the field at an artistic exhibitions or showcases;

(viii)         Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation;

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

(x)               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 can meet 4 of the 10 categories, which is more than 3 required as an alien of extraordinary ability. Our client has been awarded numerous national and international awards for his piano performance; has made an original contribution in the musical field of piano performance; has participated in a judging panel in numerous prestigious national and international piano competition events; and his distinguished achievements and success in piano performance were published in professional and major media.

Our office prepared a 19-page brief for our client’s EB-11 filing. Our client also obtained 8 letters of recommendation from internationally well-known piano professors and players. Our office also included his performance coverage, awards, media coverage, medals, recital records, and other materials to show that he is an alien of extraordinary ability in piano performance. His EB-11 I-140 application contained 55 exhibits.

Our office filed his I-140 (EB-11) petition to the USCIS Nebraska Service Center via regular processing on October 31, 2014.

However, on April 13, 2015, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE). In the RFE, the USCIS claimed that our client only met 2 of the 10 requisite statutory categories of EB-11. In the response brief, our office demonstrated that our client indeed met more categories and provided more letters of recommendations, media coverage documents, recent performance records, and leadership positions.  Our office filed the response to RFE on June 19, 2015.  Eventually, on July 7, 2015, the USCIS Nebraska Service Center approved his I-140 self-petition.

{ 0 comments }

The July 2012 Visa Bulletin is out, and please be informed that the EB2 Category is not current anymore for Mexico, Philippines, and “Other Countries”. India and China actually have an “unavailable” priority date and it will likely be “unavailable” until the October 2012 Visa Bulletin comes out.  Whereas other countries including the Philippines and Mexico have always been current on the EB2 category, now, based on the visa bulletin for July 2012, the priority date is January 1, 2009. This means that for Mexico, Philippines, and other countries, even if EB2 labor certifications are approved, the I-140 could not be filed simultaneous to the I-485 adjustment of status application. Even if the I-140 is approved, with the priority date listed as 2009, it may take close to 3 years before one can even file the adjustment of status application. For China and India, even those with I-140s approved and priority dates of 2008, 2009, and 2010 could not even file I-485s until the visa numbers become available, and their priority dates current.  Thus, it is very important to maintain non-immigrant status until the priority date becomes current again.

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:  I-485 Adjustment of Status under the INA 245(i) provision
CLIENT: Chinese
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client is from Hong Kong, China, who came to the U.S. without inspection and admission in August 2001. He never left the United States since he came.

In March 1990, our client’s uncle filed an I-130 (fourth preference) petition for his mother.  This I-130 petition was approved in April 1990.  At the time the I-130 Petition was approved, our client was a minor and was a derivative beneficiary. Later, our client’s father filed an I-130 petition on behalf of our client in March 2003.  This Petition was approved in June 2005.

Our client contacted us in February of 2012 for consultation. We determined that he is eligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(i). Our client retained us on March 1, 2012.

Section 245(i) of the INA allows certain foreign nationals to become permanent residents of the United States despite entering without inspection (EWI) or overstaying (if beneficiary of petitions filed not by an immediate relative). Immigrants are barred from adjusting their status if they entered the United States without first being inspected and admitted by a Customs and Border Patrol officer and if they have either failed to maintain lawful status or been unlawfully employed in the country, with certain exceptions. Section 245(i) was first added to law in 1994 to allow certain people who otherwise would not be eligible to adjust their status to be able to do so upon payment of a $1,000 fine.

Four years later, on January 14, 1998, Congress phased Section 245(i) out of law. Immigrants and their families who had already began the process of changing their status under Section 245(i) by January 14, 1998 were grandfathered into the section’s benefits. However, this left thousands of otherwise qualified persons who had not begun the process unable to adjust status in the United States. They could not return to their countries to begin the legal process of obtaining their permanent residency in the United States also without being subject to either a three- or a 10-year bar upon returning to the United States.

On December 21, 2000, Congress extended the qualifying date for Section 245(i) benefits to April 30, 2001. This law allowed immigrants who had labor certifications or visa petitions filed on their behalf between 1998 and April 30, 2001, to qualify for adjustment of status. Those who were beneficiaries of petitions filed prior to January 14, 1998 could still adjust despite an EWI record, and those people do not have to meet the December 2000 physical presence requirement.

Our client was the beneficiary of his father’s petition in March 2003, which is current, but this by itself would not have allowed him to adjust status since this was filed after January 1998 and because he came in 2001, thus not meeting the December 21, 2000 physical presence requirement. However, he was also the beneficiary of a petition filed before January 14, 1998, that of his uncle’s petition for his mother. So it was the two petitions that saved his case, one for 245i, and the other for adjustment eligibility.

Once retained, our office prepared and filed his adjustment of status application under the 245(i) provision. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices and fingerprint appointment all came on time.  We thoroughly prepared our client prior to his interview.  On June 8, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu accompanied him at the interview as well. Due to the complexity of the case, we made sure the officer was clear about our client’s 245i eligibility. On the same day, our client’s I-485 application was approved.  He finally became a green card holder.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

For other 245i success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-130 and Consular Processing – Marriage-Petition
CLIENT: US Citizen Petitioner; Chinese Beneficiary
LOCATION: Petitioner: Sacramento, CA; Beneficiary: Hubei, China

Our Chinese client contacted our office in the middle of May 2011. He is a U.S. Citizen living in California and sought legal assistance for his wife’s case in China. The USCIS, based on a request from the U.S. Embassy in Guangzhou, issued an intent to revoke his I-130 petition.
Our client married his Chinese citizen wife back in November 2008. This was the first marriage for both him and his wife. He mentioned that he never even had a girlfriend before, all the time consumed with work and school here in the United States. He is a civil engineer in Sacramento California.

Our client filed an I-130 petition for his wife in January 2009.  On March 20, 2009, the Director of the California Service Center approved the I-130 petition and his wife was eventually interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Guangzhou. Her U.S. Citizen husband was even there during the interview. However, the U.S. Embassy denied her immigrant visa application, and the approved I-130 petition was subsequently returned to the California Service Center by the Department of State for further review and action. The USCIS then issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke.

After our office was retained, we filed a Response to Intent to Revoke on July 7, 2011 with the USCIS California Service Center. Over 200 pages of documents and 30 exhibits were submitted in our response. On July 21, 2011, the USCIS determined that they will not to revoke our client’s I-130 petition.   After the affirmation of the I-130 petition, the US Consulate in Guangzhou, China set another interview date for our client’s wife for her immigrant visa.  On November 9, 2011, the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, China conducted the immigrant visa interview for our client’s wife and simultaneously approved and issued her immigrant visa on the same day.

With the approved Immigrant visa, our client’s wife can come to the United States immediately, and she will get her green card within two weeks of entry. She finally would be able to be with her husband.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

For family-based consular processing success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Adjustment of Status / 245(i)
CLIENT: Chinese
LOCATION: Columbus, Ohio

Section 245(i) of the INA allows certain foreign nationals to become permanent residents of the United States despite entering without inspection (EWI). Immigrants are barred from adjusting their status if they entered the United States without first being inspected and admitted by a Customs and Border Patrol officer and if they have either failed to maintain lawful status or been unlawfully employed in the country, with certain exceptions. Section 245(i) was first added to law in 1994 to allow certain people who otherwise would not be eligible to adjust their status to be able to do so upon payment of a $1,000 fine.

Four years later, on January 14, 1998, Congress phased Section 245(i) out of law. Immigrants and their families who had already begun the process of changing their status under Section 245(i) by January 14, 1998 were grandfathered into the section’s benefits. However, this left thousands of otherwise qualified persons who had not begun the process unable to adjust status in the United States. They could not return to their countries to begin the legal process of obtaining their permanent residency in the United States also without being subject to either a three- or a 10-year bar upon returning to the United States.

On December 21, 2000, Congress extended the qualifying date for Section 245(i) benefits to April 30, 2001. This law allowed immigrants who had labor certifications or visa petitions filed on their behalf between 1998 and April 30, 2001, to qualify for adjustment of status. Those who were beneficiaries of petitions filed prior to January 14, 1998 could still adjust despite an EWI record, and those people do not have to meet the December 2000 physical presence requirement.

Our clients came from China and had approved I-130 petitions (F-4 category) filed by our client’s U.S. Citizen brother in 1987.  Now that their son (over 21 years old) is a U.S. Citizen, we also filed an I-130 petitioned by their son on their behalf.  However, they have an EWI (Entry without Inspection and Admission) record in 2008. Since our clients are beneficiaries of an approved I-130 F4 petition filed in 1987, they can still adjust status through INA § 245(i) despite their entry issue. Also, since the F-4 petition was filed before January 14, 1998, physical presence in December 2000 was not required.

Our office was retained on May 23, 2011. We prepared and filed the Adjustment of Status Application with Form I-485 Supplement A on July 9, 2011.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, the fingerprint appointment, and the work permit all came on time. There was no Request for Evidence.  Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients with our Chinese speaking staff.   On October 11, 2011, our client was interviewed at the Columbus, Ohio USCIS office.  We accompanied them at the interview as well. Prior to the interview, we submitted a brief pertaining to the INA § 245(i) issue, including documents evidencing the fact that an I-130 was filed in 1987. The petition and green card applications were approved on the same day.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

For other 245i success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

Case: Motion to Reopen / Terminate with the Immigration Court
Nationality: Chinese
Location: Newark, NJ

Our client had a final order of exclusion from the Newark Immigration Court in 1992. He was considered an arriving alien, was inspected by the DHS officer, and was paroled into the United States.  Despite his final order of exclusion, our client remained in the United States and eventually married his U.S. Citizen spouse.  In 2008, this client ultimately obtained his permanent residency through adjustment of status with the USCIS as an arriving alien.

After he obtained his permanent residency, he retained our office to terminate his final order of exclusion.  Since he had a final order of exclusion from the Newark Immigration Court, our office filed a Sua Sponte Motion to Reopen and Terminate to the Newark Immigration Court on September 13, 2011.  In the Motion, we contended that our client’s case should be re-opened and terminated since our client already obtained his permanent residency.  Our client wanted his order of exclusion terminated to avoid potential issues or confusion with the immigration service, such as when he travels abroad and comes back through one of the port of entries.  We also noted that Respondent is not disputing the validity of his permanent resident card, but asked for removal proceedings to be terminated.

As a result, the Newark Immigration Court granted our Sua Sponte Motion to Reopen and Terminate on October 3, 2011. Our client now does not have a final order of exclusion on his records.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

For other Motion to Reopen and Terminate success stories, please click here and here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Master Calendar / Bond Redetermination Hearing
APPLICANT: Chinese
LOCATION: Eloy Immigration Court, AZ

Our office was contacted in early September regarding a Chinese individual detained in Eloy, Arizona. This person tried to enter the United States without valid documents and was incarcerated by immigration officers.

Prior to retention, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement already set a very high bond amount.  Our client wished to have that reduced so we filed a motion for bond redetermination with the Eloy Immigration Court in Arizona.  Our office communicated with her and her U.S. resident relative in Connecticut, and gathered as much information regarding her relief, equities, criminal record, family ties, and financial ability to post bond.  We also gathered supporting documents from those relatives, from proof of their status and residence, to bank statements and tax returns.

On October 3, 2011, we represented our client for her Eloy Arizona Immigration Court master calendar hearing and bond re-determination hearing simultaneously.  During the Master Calendar hearing, we did pleadings for our client, and requested asylum relief.  During the bond re-determination hearing, we explained to the Court that our client already passed her credible fear interview, was not a flight risk, had established her residence upon release, had established her financial ability to post bond, and that she had ample family ties in the United States who submitted proof of their residence and immigration status.  Moreover, our office explained that her lack of criminal record, designated address with contact information from his relative in the United States, ability to post bond, and eligibility for asylum relief clearly demonstrate that the bond should be reduced.  We also emphasized that our client is a young female individual, and explained briefly the nature of her asylum claim. At the end of the hearing, the Immigration Judge took our arguments into account and reduced the bond to only one-third of the  amount the DHS originally set it for.

Our client has been released and is in the process of preparing her asylum 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. 

For other jail case success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

Case: Motion to Reopen / Terminate with the BIA
Nationality: Chinese
Location: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in 2000 without any immigration document (such as a passport and / or visa) from China.  After he arrived at the port of entry, he was inspected by the DHS officer and was paroled into the United States.  He applied for asylum, but was later denied by the Immigration Judge in New York in 2002.  He appealed with the BIA and that too was denied. Thus, he had a final order of removal.

Despite his final order of removal, our client remained in the United States for the next nine years and eventually married his U.S. Citizen spouse.  As we stated in a previous success story, this client ultimately obtained his permanent residency through adjustment of status with the USCIS as an arriving alien.

After he obtained his permanent residency, he retained our office again to terminate his final order of removal.  Since he had a final order of removal, our office filed a Motion to Terminate Proceedings to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) on August 26, 2011.  Although the DHS opposed our motion, the BIA granted our Motion to Terminate on September 30, 2011. Our client now does not have a final order of removal on his records.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

For other deportation related success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }