CASE: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization)

APPLICANT: Indian

LOCATION: Lancaster, SC

Our client contacted us in June 2020 to seek legal representation for his naturalization and citizenship N-400 application. He came to the United States from India and he obtained his green card in June 2017 through marriage to his US Citizen spouse. 

His N-400 application was filed on June 12, 2020, with all supporting documents and a detailed cover brief. Prior to his citizenship interview, our office prepared him via conference calls.  On September 14, 2020, our client appeared at the Greer, SC USCIS office for his naturalization interview. Our client answered all questions correctly and passed his naturalization and citizenship interview. 

Eventually, his application was approved on the same day of the interview and he took his oath right away. He is now a naturalized U.S. Citizen.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: H-1B Extension

PETITIONER: Software Development and IT Staffing Company

BENEFICIARY: Indian Computer Systems Analyst

LOCATION: Jacksonville, FL

Our client is a fast growing software developing and IT consulting company located in Jacksonville, FL. They contacted our office in June 2016 to seek assistance from our office for their foreign employee’s H-1B extension. The beneficiary is from India and he obtained his Bachelor’s Degree in Information Systems.  The proffered position for the Beneficiary is a Computer Systems Analyst which we argued qualifies as a specialty occupation. He got his H-1B status through our office’s help in 2015.

After retention, our office promptly filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on July 13, 2016 via regular processing. We also 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.

Moreover, in our 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.

Eventually, our client’s H-1B application was approved on October 17, 2016. He can work for his employer until August 2019.  

{ 0 comments }

CASE: N-400 Citizenship / Naturalization
APPLICANT: Indian
LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio
ISSUEs: Rebuttable Presumption / Continuous Residence

Our client contacted us in late April of 2012. He came to the United States from India as a derivative beneficiary of his father’s immigrant visa in 2007 and became a permanent resident. He retained our office for his naturalization application on May 3, 2012. The main issue of his naturalization case was the two long, over six-month trips that he had within the past four years.

According to INA §316(b) and 8 C.F.R. §316.5.(c)(1)(i), an absence between 6 months and 1 year from the United States raises a rebuttable presumption that continuity of residence has been interrupted. That would be an issue in naturalization cases, where continuity of residence is essential. Applicants with this issue should rebut that presumption should they wish to apply.

Our client was out of the United States for almost a year in two consecutive years. Our client was in India during those times to completion his undergraduate studies.  In our brief, we cited Li v. Chertoff, 490 F.Supp.2d 130 (D. Mass. 2007), which held that in cases where an applicant left the country to study abroad after they became a permanent resident, the courts have ruled that such study does not result in abandonment of residency. We asked the CIS to also apply this to our client’s case since the facts in the Li case is very analogous to our client’s.

The brief and his N-400 application were filed on May 14, 2012 with all necessary supporting documents. Our office prepared him for his interview, and also accompanied him on July 24, 2012 at the Cleveland CIS office. Our client answered all questions correctly and passed his citizenship interview. We emphasized the brief as well and her reasons for his long trips to India. His N-400 was approved after the interview. His oath taking is scheduled soon where he will become a U.S. 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.

{ 1 comment }

CASE: I-130 Motion to Reopen Nunc Pro Tunc
CLIENT: Indian
LOCATION: Ohio

Our client is a naturalized U.S. citizen who resides in Ohio. In April 2001, our client filed an I-130 petition for his brother who is in India.  About a year later, our client received mail from the USCIS requesting him to submit his brother’s birth records.  Upon receipt of the letter, our client timely mailed the requested documents to the Nebraska Service Center.  However, he had not heard from the USCIS with regard to the status of the I-130 petition.

In November, 2003, our client contacted the CIS Nebraska Service Center to ask about the status of the I-130 petition.  In response to his request, USCIS informed him that his records were located at the Cleveland District Office.  Thereafter, he contacted the Cleveland District office.  However, he never got a response from the District office.  While disappointed, he kept sending letters to the CIS Nebraska Center to request the status of the I-130 petition.  Despite his efforts, he did not get any response from the USCIS.  Moreover, from the time he filed the I-130 in 2001 to 2006, he never moved to a different address.

On September 16, 2010, after following up again with the CIS Nebraska Service Center, Petitioner received an email and the Service informed him that the I-130 petition was administratively closed on September 22, 2005 and the petition was no longer pending. Our client became so disappointed and sought legal assistance to resolve this matter.  He retained our office on October 13, 2010 and Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu promptly prepared and filed a Motion to Reopen to the USCIS and asked the Service to exercise its discretion in re-opening nun pro tunc the case beyond the filing deadline since our client has never been served nor informed by the CIS with regard to the administrative closure of the I-130 petition.

Moreover, the Motion requested the CIS to summarily approve the I-130 petition for our client’s brother because our client and his brother have been waiting for the CIS decision for more than 9 years, and since he also responded to the purported Request for Evidence.  The Motion noted that it would be extremely unfortunate and unfair for our client and his brother if he has to re-file the I-130 petition again since the priority date will be moved and he would have to wait another ten years.

After we filed the Motion, his case was transferred to the Nebraska Service Center.  On March 1, 2011, the USCIS Nebraska Center informed us that the USCIS moved to reopen the matter, and also approved the I-130.  Our client’s 9-years pending I-130 petition finally got an approval, and once priority dates become current, his brother can file an Immigrant Visa in India, without having to re-file another I-130 and wait 10 more 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. 

{ 4 comments }