CASE: I-130 and Consular Processing (Immigrant Visa)
CLIENT: US Citizen Petitioner Daughter; Chinese Beneficiary Parents in China
LOCATION: Petitioner: Ohio; Beneficiary: China
I-130 FILED: June 8, 2012
I-130 APPROVED: February 8, 2013
IV APPROVED: June 3, 2013

Our client retained us to bring her parents over from China. She was born and raised in China, but was naturalized in the United States.

On June 8, 2012, our firm filed the I-130 Petitions to the CIS. There were no Requests for Evidence throughout the pendency of the petition. On February 8, 2013, the I-130 Petitions were approved. We then started the immigrant visa processing phase of trying to get her parents over to the United States.

On April 9, 2013, we filed the immigrant visa packets to the National Visa Center who in turn forwarded our client’s materials to the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, China. An interview notice was set for our client’s parents at the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, and we prepared them for their interview. On June 3, 2013, the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, China approved and issued their immigrant visa.

With the approved immigrant visa, our client’s parents can come to the United States immediately, and they will get their green cards within two weeks of entry.

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 family immigration success stories, please click here.

For other consular processing 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: Trinidad and Tobago
LOCATION: Brooklyn, NY

Our client came to the United States in August 2010 with an H-1B work visa from Trinidad and Tobago.  She married a U.S. Citizen in December 2012 and retained our office on January 23, 2013 for her adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on March 11, 2013.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permit all came on time. Prior to the interview, attorney JP Sarmiento prepared the client at a time convenient for them – 8pm.

On June 26, 2013, our client was interviewed at the New York, New York CIS office.  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 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: Motion to Reopen / Termination of Removal Proceedings

CLIENT: Chinese

LOCATION: New York, NY

Our client came to the United States from China with valid B-2 visitor’s visa in 1996. Within one year of his entry, he filed an I-589 Application for Asylum.

In January 1998, our client had his asylum interview in Rosedale, New York. After the interview, his asylum application was referred to the New York Immigration Court and a Notice to Appear was issued for our client.

Respondent attended his first hearing, but missed his second hearing in December 1998. Respondent said he did not know of his second hearing, and that his attorney never informed him of such. Thus, he missed it.

Our client has remained in the U.S. ever since to take care and raise his U.S. Citizen daughter. He was with his wife who is now a lawful permanent resident.  Over the past decade, his wife had suffered from several medical issues.

Our client then became the beneficiary of an approved I-130 petition filed by his U.S. Citizen daughter. However, he could not adjust his status based on this I-130 petition due to his final order of removal.

Prior to retaining our office, our client tried to reopen his case with the Immigration Court through two other immigration lawyers in New York; however, both were not successful.

We reviewed his case and informed him that reopening will be tough because previous lawyers have tried twice and were denied. We told him that if we were to do it, we plan to emphasize the medical hardships of his wife and also technically address the ineffective assistance of counsel issue, by having him do all necessary steps, from the bar complaint, to proper notification, and others. He agreed.

On December 8, 2011, our client retained our office to do another Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen.

Once retained, our office extensively prepared and gathered documents for our client’s request to join in a Motion to Reopen with the DHS.  As set for forth in Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum, in determining whether to join in a Motion to Reopen, the INS (now the DHS) should consider the following factors: (1) whether adjustment of status was available at the prior hearing; (2) whether the alien is statutorily eligible for adjustment of status; and (3) whether the alien merits a favorable exercise of discretion.

In considering these factors, as delineated in William J. Howard’s October 24, 2005, Memorandum, “where a motion to reopen for adjustment of status… is filed on behalf of an alien with substantial equities, no serious criminal or immigration violations, and who is legally eligible to be granted relief except that the motion is beyond the 90-day limitation contained in 8 C.F.R. Section 1003.23, strongly consider exercising prosecutorial discretion and join in this motion to reopen to permit the alien to pursue such relief to the immigration court.”

Thus, we argued that if our client’s case is reopened, he will be prima facie eligible to adjust his status.  In our brief, we argued that our client had substantial equities considering the medical records of his wife and legal status of both his wife and daughter.

Our client had no criminal records and his immigration violation was for overstaying his legal entry.  Despite his overstay, our client still filed for asylum within one year of his entry to the United States. We pointed out that our client was not informed of his immigration hearing due to the ineffective assistance of his previous immigration counsel. We also pointed out that his daughter is a world class pianist who has perfumed in several prestigious events.

On July 11, 2012, our office filed the Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen to the Office of Chief Counsel in New York, NY.  In an 11-page brief, we pointed out several factors from his detailed affidavit regarding his immigration history and equities. Several affidavits from his family members were also included.

We also included over 200 pages of supporting documents to show his wife’s medical issues, his prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status if his case was reopened, and Lozada compliance documents.

On December 4, 2012, after two tries by our client with two other lawyers, the New York DHS-ICE office agreed to join in the motion to reopen for the sole purpose of having the Court terminate the case without prejudice to allow our client to seek adjustment of status.

Once we got consent from the DHS, our office prepared and filed a Motion to Reopen and Motion to Terminate to the Board of Immigration Appeals on December 21, 2012.  Eventually, the Board of Immigration of Appeals granted our Motions on March 5, 2012.  Now, our client’s final order of removal is rescinded, and he can file an I-485 adjustment of status application based on the approved I-130 petition to the USCIS directly.

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 Terminate success story, please click here.

For other Deportation success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

{ 2 comments }

CASE: Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen with the DHS

CLIENT: Chinese

LOCATION: New York, NY

Our client came to the United States from China with valid B-2 visitor’s visa in 1996. Within one year of his entry, he filed an I-589 Application for Asylum.

In January 1998, our client had his asylum interview in Rosedale, New York. After the interview, his asylum application was referred to the New York Immigration Court and the Notice to Appear was issued for our client.

Respondent attended his first hearing, but missed his second hearing in December 1998. Respondent said he did not know of his second hearing, and that his attorney never informed him of such. Thus, he missed it.

Our client has remained in the U.S. ever since to take care and raise his U.S. Citizen daughter. He was with his wife who is now a lawful permanent resident.  Over the past decade, his wife had suffered from several medical issues.

Our client then became the beneficiary of an approved I-130 petition filed by his U.S. Citizen daughter. However, he could not adjust his status based on this I-130 petition due to his final order of removal.

Prior to retaining our office, our client tried to reopen his case with the Immigration Court through two other immigration lawyers in New York; however, both were not successful.

We reviewed his case and informed him that reopening will be tough because previous lawyers have tried twice and were denied. We told him that if we were to do it, we plan to emphasize the medical hardships of his wife and also technically address the ineffective assistance of counsel issue, by having him do all necessary steps, from the bar complaint, to proper notification, and others. He agreed.

On December 8, 2011, our client retained our office to do another Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen.

Once retained, our office extensively prepared and gathered documents for our client’s request to join in a Motion to Reopen with the DHS.  As set for forth in Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum, in determining whether to join in a Motion to Reopen, the INS (now the DHS) should consider the following factors: (1) whether adjustment of status was available at the prior hearing; (2) whether the alien is statutorily eligible for adjustment of status; and (3) whether the alien merits a favorable exercise of discretion.

In considering these factors, as delineated in William J. Howard’s October 24, 2005, Memorandum, “where a motion to reopen for adjustment of status… is filed on behalf of an alien with substantial equities, no serious criminal or immigration violations, and who is legally eligible to be granted relief except that the motion is beyond the 90-day limitation contained in 8 C.F.R. Section 1003.23, strongly consider exercising prosecutorial discretion and join in this motion to reopen to permit the alien to pursue such relief to the immigration court.”

Thus, we argued that if our client’s case is reopened, he will be prima facie eligible to adjust his status.  In our brief, we argued that our client had substantial equities considering the medical records of his wife and legal status of both his wife and daughter.

Our client had no criminal records and his immigration violation was for overstaying his legal entry.  Despite his overstay, our client still filed for asylum within one year of his entry to the United States. We pointed out that our client was not informed of his immigration hearing due to the ineffective assistance of his previous immigration counsel. We also pointed out that his daughter is a world class pianist who has perfumed in several prestigious events.

On July 11, 2012, our office filed the Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen to the Office of Chief Counsel in New York, NY.  In an 11-page brief, we pointed out several factors from his detailed affidavit regarding his immigration history and equities. Several affidavits from his family members were also included.

We also included over 200 pages of supporting documents to show his wife’s medical issues, his prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status if his case was reopened, and Lozada compliance documents.

On December 4, 2012, after two tries by our client with two other lawyers, the New York DHS-ICE office agreed to join in the motion to reopen for the sole purpose of having the Court terminate the case without prejudice to allow our client to seek adjustment of status.

Now, our client’s case can be reopened and terminated in Court. He then can file for adjustment of status based on the approved I-130 filed by his U.S. Citizen daughter.

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 success stories, please click here.

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.

<a href=”https://plus.google.com/107743308565341841259/posts?rel=author”>Google</a>

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status
CLIENT: Bangladeshi
LOCATION: New York

Our client came to the United States in 2002 with a B-2 visitor visa from Bangladesh. After she got divorced, she married a U.S. Citizen in July 2012 and retained our office on August 10, 2012 for her petition and adjustment of status application.

She also asked us to file her daughter’s (Petitioner’s step-daughter) adjustment of status application.

Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application on August 16, 2012. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. There were no requests for evidence.

Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients over conference call. On November 14, 2012, our clients were interviewed at the Holtsville, New York USCIS office. On the same day, our client and her daughter’s green card applications were 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 consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: J-1 Waiver of the Two-Year Foreign Residency Requirement, No Objection Statement
NATIONALITY: Indonesian
LOCATION: New York, NY
FILED: August 2, 2012
DOS RECOMMENDATION: September 24, 2012
I-612 APPROVAL: October 5, 2012

Our Indonesian client came to the U.S. on a J-1 Visa in September 2000. She came to the U.S. for business training, and her J-1 visa made her subject to the two-year foreign resident requirement. She overstayed, and worked various jobs in New York.

In June 2012, our client married her U.S. Citizen husband and she wanted to apply for permanent residency. However, due to the two-year foreign residency requirement, she had to obtain a waiver first.

After she retained our firm, we prepared and filed a waiver request through a No Objection Statement (NOS) from the Indonesian Embassy in Washington DC. Our office contacted the Indonesian Embassy in Washington D.C. to make sure we knew all the requirements needed for their office to issue a no objection statement. The Embassy requested nine different documents including a statement of reason for the waiver, the applicant’s resume, a copy of her valid Indonesian passport, and a copy of Form DS-3035.

On August 2, 2012 the J-1 Waiver (Form DS-3035) Application was filed to the Department of State. We also sent a request to the Indonesian Embassy to issue a No Objection Statement and recommend this waiver based on the fact that our client would have been eligible to file a marriage based adjustment of status application but for the waiver.

The Indonesian Embassy eventually issued a No Objection Statement for our client, and sent this letter to the State Department’s Waiver Review Division. On September 24, 2012, the Waiver Review Division issued a favorable recommendation based on the No Objection statement. The CIS then issued a receipt and an I-612 approval notice on October 5, 2012. Now that our client’s two-year foreign residency requirement is waived, she can file for adjustment of status application with her husband’s I-130 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 J-1 waiver 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: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition / I-485 under the INA 245(i) provision
CLIENT: St. Lucian
LOCATION: New York, NY

Our client is from St. Lucia who came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitors visa in December 2003. Since that time, she never left the United States.  Because of her overstay, removal proceedings was initiated against her in September 2010.

In May 1986, our client’s aunt filed an I-130 (fourth preference) petition for her father.  This I-130 petition was approved in August 1986.  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 February 1998.  This Petition was approved in November of that year.

Our client contacted us around December of 2010 for consultation and sought legal assistance for her removal proceedings. After the consultation, we determined that she is eligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(i). Our client retained us on January 13, 2011.

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.

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

Once retained, our office promptly filed a Motion to Change Venue from Buffalo to New York.  This was granted and on April 1, 2011, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to Terminate proceedings with an attached I-485 application and its supporting documents. The DHS counsel in New York agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to Terminate without prejudice on August 17, 2011.

Once her case was terminated, the USCIS New York scheduled an I-485 interview for our client. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our client through conference call. On May 1, 2012, our client was interviewed at the New York City USCIS office. Attorney JP Sarmiento accompanied her 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 May 30, 2012, our client’s I-485 application was approved.  She 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 245i success stories, please click here.

For termination success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact us anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-140 (EB-3 Category) / Schedule A
EMPLOYER: Hospital
BENEFICIARY: Canadian
LOCATION: New York, NY

Our client is a registered nurse, who is currently working at a large hospital in New York City. 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 on Schedule A.

Our client has a nursing degree and has more than 5 years related experience. Her employer filed an I-140 petition for her before; however, it was denied due to the prevailing wage issue.  After talking to our client, our firm concluded that her potential employer can petition her again as a Registered Nurse under the schedule A category.

We filed the I-140 application on September 9, 2011 via regular processing. We included the job offer letter, employment verification letters from our client’s previous employers, the notice of filing, her TN status approval notices, and other necessary supporting documents. On May 14, 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.

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 immigration 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: Jamaican
LOCATION: New York, NY

Our client came to the United States in September 2007 with an H-2B seasonal temporary work visa from Jamaica. She married a U.S. Citizen in July 2011 and retained our office on November 7, 2011 for her adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on November 18, 2011.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, the fingerprint appointment, and the work permit all came on time.  Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients.  On April 26, 2012, our client was interviewed at the New York, NY USCIS.  Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu 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 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.

{ 1 comment }

CASE: Asylum in Immigration Court
CLIENT: Russian
LOCATION: New York Immigration Court

Our Russian client came to the United States on a J-1 visa in June 2009.  She was persecuted in Russia based on her ethnicity, so within one year of her entry, she filed an asylum application (Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and relief under the CAT) to the USCIS.  She was interviewed at the Asylum Office in New York, but her case was referred to an immigration judge in June 2010.  The Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceedings.  The USCIS thought that our client’s testimony was different from that of her written statement.

After the case was referred to the Immigration Court, our client contacted our office in late January of 2011. We met her in New York City for the consultation. She then retained our office on February 4, 2011.

Our client was scared to go back home to Russia, fearing that she will be persecuted based on her ethnicity. Our client lived in Russia with her mother, however, her mother was attacked by racial extremists and she was severely injured by the attack.  Later in 2008, our client was severely attacked by a group of skinheads based on her ethnicity. As a result of this attack, she had rib fractures and a concussion. The Russian police did not fully investigate the incident and could not arrest any attackers.

We helped her prepare her asylum application and represented her in immigration court hearings. We also asked her to provide supporting documents corroborating her claim, some of which were a letter from her mother and friends in Russia, Russian medical documents of our client and her mother, and her membership certification with the anti-fascist front. Our firm also did some research on articles related to her claim, and the type of persecution she will experience in Russia if sent back.

Our client’s individual hearing was scheduled on August 11, 2011 at the New York Immigration Court. Attorney Sung Hee Yu represented our client at the hearing. During the hearing, our client testified credibly as to her past persecution in Russia and likelihood of future persecution. After the hearing, the Immigration Judge requested us to submit a new X-ray and psychiatry report from U.S. doctors. The court also requested our client’s doctor to testify at the hearing. On April 5, 2012, after the doctor’s expert testimony, the Immigration Judge granted asylum relief for our client. She is now an asylee who will get her work permit in two weeks and will be eligible to apply for permanent residency in one year.

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 asylum success stories, please click here.

For other deportation 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 }