CASE: I-130 and Consular Processing (Immigrant Visa) – Marriage-Petition

Our client is a U.S. citizen who married his wife in Tbilisi, Georgia in December 2012.  After the marriage, he came back to the United States and contacted our office in early January 2013 and retained us to bring his wife to the States.

Our office prepared and filed the I-130 to the USCIS in January 8, 2013. After the I-130 was filed, everything went smoothly, there were no requests for evidence, and the receipt notices came on time.

The I-130 Petition was approved on March 11, 2013.

After the I-130 approval, we filed the immigrant visa packets to the National Visa Center on May 24, 2013, who in turn forwarded our client’s materials to the U.S. Embassy in Tbilisi, Georgia. An interview notice was set for the client at the US Embassy in Tbilisi, and we prepared her for the interview. On August 7, 2013, the interview was conducted.  Eventually, on August 30, 2013, the U.S. Embassy in Tbilisi, Georgia approved and issued her immigrant visa.

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.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751

APPLICANT: Kenyan

LOCATION: Atlanta, Georgia

Our client contacted our office in early April of this year regarding her I-751 interview. She is from Kenya and married a U.S. citizen in June 2008. Through her marriage with a U.S. citizen spouse, she obtained a 2-year conditional green card in November of 2009.

Prior to the expiration of her conditional residency in November 2011, she and her husband jointly filed an I-751 application to remove the condition on her residency. Without the assistance of legal counsel, they filed an I-751 application to the USCIS in October 2011.  They filed the application with some supporting documents, but the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) sometime in 2012, and they submitted more supporting documentary evidence to the USCIS. She and her husband have maintained their marital relationship for the last 5 years without any issues. Nevertheless, the USCIS Atlanta Field Office issued an interview for our client’s I-751 application.

She was nervous and did not know what would happen at her I-751 interview.  She contacted our office in early April of this year, and retained our office to prepare and accompany them for their I-751 interview in Atlanta, Georgia.

After our office was retained, we thoroughly prepared our clients through conference calls.  We explained to them the nature of the interview, what to expect at the interview, and we also asked them to remember specific details of their marriage especially after November 2009.

On April 25, 2013, our client was interviewed at the Atlanta, GA USCIS Field Office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied them at this interview. The interview went well and our clients were fully prepared.  On May 8, 2013, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application. Now, she has her ten-year 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. 

For other I-751 success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

{ 2 comments }

CASE: H-1B Visa Petition

PETITIONER:  Capital Investment Company in Georgia

BENEFICIARY: Lithuanian International Compliance Manager

Our client is a Capital Investment Company in Georgia which owns local and international travel clubs and sells memberships. They contacted our office in late April of 2012 to seek legal assistance for its foreign beneficiary’s H-1B visa petition.

The beneficiary is Lithuanian and obtained her Bachelor’s and Master’s Degree in International Law in Lithuania. She has worked for different companies in the United States on an H-1B visa and got an offer from our client. The proffered position for the Beneficiary was for an International Compliance Manager which we argued qualified as a specialty occupation. We argued that the minimum requirement for this position is a Bachelor’s Degree in International Law/Relations or its equivalent.

Upon retention, our firm prepared and eventually filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on May 1, 2012 via premium processing. However, the USCIS Vermont Service Center issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) on July 13, 2012.

The USCIS argued that the offered position does not qualify as a “specialty occupation.” They claimed that the business was new and that a Bachelor’s degree was not required for this position.  They claimed that the beneficiary’s position is not specialized and complex enough to be qualified as a specialty occupation as the law requires.

In response to the RFE, our office argued in an 6-page response brief with 15 exhibits that the nature of the specific duties are so specialized and complex that knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a Bachelor’s degree.  Moreover, we argued that the degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations.

Our office filed the response to the USCIS Vermont Service Center on October 1, 2012. Our client’s H-1B application was approved 15 days later on October 15, 2012. Now the Beneficiary can work for the Petitioner on an H-1B status until March 31, 2015.

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 H-1B 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
CLIENT: Ivorian (Cote D’Ivoire)
LOCATION: Atlanta, GA

Our client came to the United States with a valid P-1 visa from Cote D’Ivoire in 1997. Later, she married her U.S. Citizen ex-husband and her ex-husband filed an I-130 petition on her behalf. Our client also simultaneously filed an I-485 adjustment of status application.  While the petition and application were pending, our client moved to a different apartment and filed a change of address to the INS.  However, they did not receive any interview notice from the INS for two years, so they hired an immigration attorney to follow-up on their pending application.  Apparently, to no knowledge of Respondent, the INS issued an interview notice, but it was delivered to the wrong address. Only after a decade later through a file request did our client find out about the interview notice. Since our client could not appear at her interview, her adjustment application was deemed abandoned, and she was placed in removal proceedings based on her overstay.

Unfortunately, our client was not aware of the issuance of the Notice to Appear (“NTA”). Based on the file she obtained years later from her file request, the Notice to Appear (NTA) was sent by regular mail and her address was completely wrong.  Our client never lived at the address stated on the NTA and never wrote that address on any form submitted to the USCIS nor the former INS.  Our client thus never received her NTA, never knew about her being in removal proceedings nor her obligations to submit Form EOIR-33.  Because of her absence at the hearing at the Atlanta Immigration Court, the court issued an in absentia order of removal in 2001.

Our client got divorced with her ex-husband five years ago.  She married her current U.S. Citizen husband last year and contacted our office to seek legal assistance for her adjustment of status in November 2011.  After obtaining background information, we informed her that she has a final order of removal since 2001.  Our client was surprised because she actually had an attorney in 2002 to follow up on her case and she was never informed by the immigration service nor by her attorney of this final order.  She told us that she never received an NTA.  We advised her that she needs to file a Motion to Reopen in absentia order of removal.

Through a Motion to Reopen In Absentia Order of Removal, the Immigration Judge can rescind the in absentia order of removal if you are able to show that you did not receive proper notice of your hearing. If the Notice to Appear was sent to the wrong address for example, and not the last address you provided to the immigration service, then you’d have a good basis for this type of Motion to Reopen.

On December 2, 2011, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Atlanta Immigration Court. Documentation of her address at the date of the final order, a detailed affidavit regarding her addresses and the circumstances around the final order date, documentation of the last address she provided to the immigration service prior to the final order, and other supporting documents were submitted (12 exhibits). The Department of Homeland Security filed a non- opposition to our Motion. On December 13, 2011, the Atlanta Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case.  Now our client does not have a final order of removal and may seek adjustment of status relief with the Immigration Court upon approval of an I-130, or seek termination of proceedings for the CIS to adjudicate her green card application also upon approval of her I-130.

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 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-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 }