CASE: H-1B Visa Petition
PETITIONER:  Hospital / Medical Research Center
BENEFICIARY: Strategic Planning Analyst
ISSUES: Cap-Exempt, Research Organization

Our client is a large hospital and medical research center located in Columbus, OH. They contacted our office in the middle of June to seek legal assistance from our office for their foreign employee. The beneficiary obtained her MBA degree in the United States. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is a strategic planning analyst. We showed that this is a “specialty occupation” because the minimum requirement for this position is a Bachelor’s Degree in Business related curriculum or its equivalent.

Prior to our client contacting us, the numerical cap of H-1B visas for fiscal year 2013 was reached.  Our client was very disappointed and thought they would have to wait until April 1, 2013. We told our client that we can argue that they are qualified for cap-exempt petitions and emphasize that they are a non-profit research organization as defined in 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(19)(iii)(C). Cases have gone both ways for hospitals, but we thought that if the research aspect of their work is highlighted, that chances of approval are high.

INA Section 214(g)(5) says “the numerical limitations contained in paragraph (1)(A) shall not apply to any non-immigrant alien issued a visa or otherwise provided status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) who –

(B) is employed (or has received an offer of employment) at a nonprofit research organization or a governmental research organization.”

According to the June 6, 2006 Michael Aytes’ Memo (Published by USCIS) on the Guidance Regarding Eligibility for Exemption from the H-1B Cap Based on Section 103 of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313), it outlines the fee and cap exemption for nonprofit research organization as defined in 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(19)(iii)(C).  Under 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(19)(iii)(C), a non-profit research organization is “an organization that is primarily engaged in basic research and/or applied research. Basic research is also research that advances scientific knowledge, but does not have specific immediate commercial objectives although it may be in fields of present or potential commercial interest.  It may include research and investigation in the sciences, social sciences, or humanities.  Applied research is research to gain knowledge or understanding to determine the means by which a specific, recognized need may be met.  Applied research includes investigations oriented to discovering new scientific knowledge that has specific commercial objectives with respect to products, processes, or services.  It may include research and investigation in the sciences, social sciences, or humanities.”

Our office argued that the Petitioner was primarily engaged in applied research, and was thus qualified as a non-profit research organization as defined in 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(19)(iii)(C).

Once retained, our office filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on June 28, 2012 via premium processing. There were no Requests for Evidence during the processing of the H-1B. Eventually, our client’s H-1B application was approved on July 13, 2012.  She can now work for her employer for three years on an H-1B status starting October 1, 2012.  She will continue to work there on an OPT in the meantime.

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: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization)
APPLICANT: South Korean
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client contacted us to seek legal assistance for his naturalization matters.   He came to the United States from South Korea and obtained his green card in 1999.  However, he was concerned for his naturalization due to his failure to register for Selective Service during the required time period.  He retained our office to assist in his citizenship application.

After we were retained, our office contacted the Selective Service office and requested a status letter for our client.  We explained that our client became a green card holder when he was a minor and no one informed him of the Selective Service registration requirements. Thus, his failure to register was not knowing and willful. The Selective Service issued a status letter for our client, thereby allowing him to apply for naturalization.

The N-400 application was filed on May 1, 2012 with all required supporting documents.  We included a brief explaining that our client’s failure to register for Selective Service was not willful.  Although the Military Selective Service Act provides for civil penalties for failure to register, Section 12 of the Military Service Act also provides some relief from the adverse civil effects of failure to register:

(g) A person may not be denied a right, privilege, or benefit under Federal law by reason of failure to present himself for and submit to registration under section 3 if:

(1) The requirement for the person to so register has terminated or become inapplicable to the person; and
(2) The person shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the failure of the person to register was not a knowing and willful failure to register.

Our client’s registration requirement has become inapplicable due to his age.  Moreover, he has never been informed by anyone during 11 years of his residence in the U.S. with regard to the selective service system registration requirement.  Therefore, our client clearly did not knowingly and willfully fail to register during the requested period of time.

Our office prepared him before the interview, and our client was scheduled to appear before the Cleveland USCIS office on July 13, 2012.   Our attorney Sung Hee yu accompanied him as well.  Our client answered all questions correctly and passed him citizenship interview.   Eventually, his N-400 was approved. His oath taking will be scheduled soon in which he will be a naturalized Citizen.

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 naturalization 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: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status
CLIENT: Filipina
LOCATION: Chicago, IL

Our client came to the United States in January 1994 with an H-1B visa from the Philippines. Although her authorized stay expired on December 29, 1994, she remained in the United States. She married a U.S. Citizen in January 2011 and retained our office a few months later.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on April 17, 2012.  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 through conference call. On July 11, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Chicago, IL USCIS.  We accompanied our client at her interview as well.  On the same day, her green card application was approved.

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 marriage-based green card success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free phone or in-person consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status
CLIENT: Swedish
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in June 2009 with an F-1 Student visa from Sweden.  He married a U.S. Citizen in March 2012 and retained our office on March 27, 2012 for his adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on April 11, 2012.  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. On June 28, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, OH USCIS.  On the same day, his green card application was approved.

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 marriage-based green card success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-90
APPLICANT: Cuban
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our Cuban client has been a green card holder since 1973.  However, his card expired in January 2011, and he did not renew it until he contacted our office in January 2012. He retained our office for his green card renewal on January 26, 2012. One day after our retention, our office filed an I-90 extension/renewal application on January 27, 2012.    Our client was fingerprinted and a background check was conducted for him. Eventually, his I-90 was approved on June 18, 2012 and his 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. 

For other success stories, please click here.

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE:  I-130
CLIENT: Mexican
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client is from Mexico who came to the U.S. without inspection and admission in 1988 with her parents. Since that time, she never left the United States.

In November 1991, our client’s father filed an I-130 (F2A) petition for her mother.  This I-130 petition was approved in March 1992.  At the time the I-130 Petition was approved, our client was a minor and was a derivative beneficiary. However, our client’s parents divorced in 2007.  Furthermore, our client was placed in removal proceeding in December 2009.

Around November 2010, our client contacted our office to represent her at removal proceedings. After we reviewed her previous immigration documents, we determined that she might be eligible to adjust her status under INA 245(i) and the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA).  She retained our office on December 1, 2010 and our attorney represented her at her master calendar hearing.  Cancellation of Removal relief was requested and we preserved possible adjustment of status relief through INA 245(i) and CSPA.

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 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.

Section 3 of CSPA, codified in section 203(h) of the INA, provides that “If the age of the alien is determined to be 21 years of age or older… the alien’s petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.”

Our client was the derivative beneficiary of her father’s petition for her mother in November, 1991.  Our client is now older than 21. According to Section 3 of CSPA, a new I-130 petition by our client’s father on behalf of our client should automatically retain the priority date of the original I-130 petition, which was November 1991, in which our client was a derivative beneficiary. If this new I-130 is approved with a November 1991 priority date, our client would be eligible to adjust under 245(i) since the priority date is current and the petition was filed before January 1998.  So it was two petitions that saved her case, one for 245i, and the other for adjustment eligibility, retaining the old priority date under CSPA.

On January 11, 2012, our office filed the I-130 Petition with a cover brief (citing the CSPA provision) and other supporting documents.  Her I-130 was approved by the USCIS California Service Center on June 14, 2012 with the old priority date (November 1991).  Now, we can work on terminating her proceedings for CIS adjustment of status.

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 CSPA 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: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status
CLIENT: Ukraine
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in June 2008 with a J-1 exchange visitor visa from Ukraine.  She married a U.S. Citizen in December 2011 and retained our office on January 9, 2012 for her adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on February 28, 2012.  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. On June 18, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS office.  We accompanied them at the interview as well.  On the same day, her green card application was approved.

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 marriage-based 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 }

On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of DHS, Janet Napolitano, issued a memorandum on new prosecutorial discretion standards pertaining to certain illegal aliens. She started by stating that immigrants who were illegally brought to the United States as children “lacked the intent to violate the law” and pose few national security risks.  If the individual meets the following criteria, that person will not be deported or removed from the United States as a result of the prosecutorial discretion.

• Came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
• Has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and is present  in the United States on the date of this memorandum;
• Is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general education development certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;
• Has not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety; and
• Is not above the age of thirty.

For individuals who are granted deferred action by either ICE or USCIS, USCIS shall accept applications to determine whether these individuals qualify for work authorization during this period of deferred action.

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

{ 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 }

On June 11, 2012, the SCIS received a sufficient number of petitions to reach the statutory cap for FY 2013.  On June 7, 2012, USCIS also received more than 20,000 H-1B petitions on behalf of persons exempt from the cap under the advanced degree exemption.  According to the USCIS’ Website, the USCIS will reject petitions subject to the cap for H-1B specialty occupation workers seeking an employment start date in FY 2013 (normally October 1, 2012) that are received after June 11, 2012.

Nevertheless, USCIS will continue to accept petitions exempted from the cap and DOD cooperative research worker H-1B petitions and Chile/Singapore H-1B1 petitions requesting an employment start date in FY 2013.

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

{ 0 comments }