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 }

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

Our client came to the United States in December 2000 as an H-4 visa holder from India.  Although her authorized stay in the U.S. expired in January 2004, she has stayed in the United States since then. In September 2011, she married her U.S. Citizen husband and retained our office on October 11, 2011 for her adjustment of status application. Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on October 24, 2011. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permit all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients. On February 10, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, OH USCIS. Our attorney accompanied them as well.

However, after the interview, the CIS office issued a Form I-72 asking for: a civil marriage certificate / abstract for our client and his previous husband, and an explanation as to why this marriage was not listed nor acknowledged during the interview. We reviewed the documents that she provided us after and realized that her previous marriage was only a religious marriage and not registered in the state of Ohio. Under immigration law, a religious marriage is considered a valid marriage for immigration purposes only if it is recognized by the sovereign in that country or state as a valid marriage.  Matter of Ceballos, 16 I&N Dec. 765 (BIA 1979).  Since our client’s previous religious marital ceremony was not registered in Ohio, it is not a valid marriage for immigration purposes. On May 8, 2012, our office filed a response to the Request for Evidence which included an affidavit from our client.

On May 30, 2012, our client’s I-485 adjustment of status application was approved. After 12 years in the United States, she is finally a permanent resident.

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 consultations.

{ 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: TPS Extension
Client: Salvadoran
Location: Cleveland, OH

The Secretary of Homeland Security may designate a foreign country for Temporary Protected Status due to conditions in the country that temporarily prevent the country’s nationals from returning safely, or in certain circumstances, where the country is unable to handle the return of its nationals adequately. USCIS may grant TPS to eligible nationals of certain countries (or parts of countries), who are already in the United States. Eligible individuals without nationality who last resided in the designated country may also be granted TPS. The Secretary may designate a country for TPS due to the following temporary conditions in the country: 1) Ongoing armed conflict (such as civil war); 2) An environmental disaster (such as earthquake or hurricane), or 3) an epidemic or other extraordinary and temporary condition. During the designated period, individuals who are TPS beneficiaries or who are found preliminarily eligible for TPS upon initial review of their cases (prima facie eligible): are not removable from the United States, can obtain an employment authorization document (EAD), may be granted travel authorization

Once TPS is granted, the individual also cannot be detained by DHS on the basis of his or her immigration status in the United States.

Our client first entered the United States in 1990 and has resided in the U.S. ever since. He had obtained TPS and work permits for a long time. He contacted our office in February 2012 for his TPS re-registration and work permit. He previously tried to re-register his TPS extension, but it was denied previously. He has not had a work permit for over 2 years. Our client retained us on February 23, 2012. On February 29, 2012, our office filed his TPS Application and Work Permit with a brief regarding his eligibility. We explained that our client has continued residence in the United States and continued physical presence since 1999. On May 15, 2012, the USCIS approved his TPS and issued a valid work permit for our client.

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 }

The USCIS released the number of receipted cap-eligible H-1B visa petitions from April 1, 2012 to June 1, 2012. As of June 1, 2012, approximately 55,600 H-1B cap-subject petitions were receipted. The Annual Cap amount for H-1B regular cap is 65,000.  Additionally, the USCIS has receipted 18,700 H-1B petitions for foreign workers with advanced degrees (master’s degree or higher). The Annual Cap amount for H-1B Master’s Degree Exemption is 20,000.

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-140 (EB-1C Category: Executives and Managers of Multinational Organizations)
EMPLOYER: Multinational Tire Corporation
BENEFICIARY: Korean
LOCATION: Akron, Ohio

Our client is a vice president of a multinational tire corporation in Ohio.  He is from Korea, and has worked for its parent company for 24 years in positions of increasing responsibility including that of team manager. He came to the United States in July 2011 with an E-2 visa to work for current petitioner company (wholly-owned subsidiary of his previous employer).  He contacted our firm in December 2011, and discussed us his chances of getting a green card.  Based on our client’s educational and professional background and his current position at the worksite, our office determined that he was clearly eligible for the EB-1C classification for his I-140 petition. Our client eventually retained us for his I-140 and subsequent I-485 adjustment of status application on December 15, 2011.

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 21 years in the United States. In addition, Petitioner-Company is the wholly-owned subsidiary of its Korean parent company where our client was employed for 24 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 South Korea.  Our client served as a team manager and later became general manager for the parent company.  He personally supervised and controlled the work of other researchers and engineers for new types and models of tire developments, and was primarily responsible for the company’s various new tires.  Lastly, our client is to be employed in the United States as a vice president / technical manager 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 South Korea.  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 approval for overseas investment, a copy of the annual report and consolidated financial statements.  The I-140 Petition was filed on March 15, 2012.  On June 1, 2012, the I-140 was approved with no Requests for Evidence.  Now, our client can file the I-485 adjustment of status application based on the approved I-140 petition.

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 employment-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 consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-140 (EB-3 Category) / Schedule A
EMPLOYER: Nursing / Rehabilitation Center
BENEFICIARY: Filipina
LOCATION: Des Plaines

Our client is a registered nurse, who is currently working at a large nursing and rehabilitation facility in Des Plaines, Illinois. Her employer was willing to petition her for a third-preference employment immigrant visa petition (I-140). Since she was a registered nurse, she was eligible for “Schedule A” classification. The Department of Labor (DOL) maintains a schedule of occupations in its regulations, Schedule A included, for which the individual permanent labor certification procedure is not required. The schedule of pre-certified occupations is referred to as Schedule A, and is included in DOL regulations at 20 CFR 656.10. Based on an occupation’s inclusion on Schedule A, an employer may file an immigrant visa petition (I-140) directly with the (USCIS) without first going to the DOL for a labor certification. Usually, prior to filing I-140 petitions (EB-2 or EB-3 category), the employer must file a Labor Certification to the Department of Labor. However, for Schedule A cases, the employer does not have to go through the labor certification process. The position of Professional Nurses is included in Schedule A.

Our client has a nursing degree and has more than 4 years related experience. Our office was retained on January 31, 2012 and we started on the Prevailing Wage Determination filing and other related matters.

We filed the I-140 application on March 29, 2012 via regular processing. We included the job offer letter, employment verification letters from our client’s previous employers, the notice of filing, her H-1B status approval notices, and other necessary supporting documents.  On May 5, 2012, upon our client’s request, we upgraded her processing to premium processing by filing an I-907 application with the required fees. However, the Nebraska Service Center issued Notice of Intent to Deny on May 17, 2012. The USCIS NSC argued about Petitioner’s normal recruiting procedures.  On May 23, 2012, our office filed a Response to Notice of Intent to Deny and argued that Petitioner has no in-house media and their normal procedures do not include the use of in-house media for the recruitment of similar positions. Also, Petitioner did place the notice of filing in accordance with the regulations and that was submitted at the I-140 filing.  On May 30, 2012, the I-140 was approved. Now, our client can file I-485 adjustment
of status application based on the approved I-140 petition when her priority date becomes current. She also will be eligible for a 3-year extension of her H-1B even if she is on her 6th year on H-1B.

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 EB-3 I-140 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 }