Case: I-130/I-485

Potential Issue: Response to Notice of Intent to Deny

Client: Nigerian

Location: Fairfax, VA

Our client entered the United States in May 2008 from Nigeria with a B-2 visitor visa.  Later, she married her U.S. citizen husband in April 2012. She retained our office on February 12, 2013 for her adjustment of status application.

Our office prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on March 15, 2013.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our client via conference calls for their USCIS adjustment of status interview.

On June 14, 2013, our client and her husband appeared at the Fairfax, VA USCIS office for her adjustment interview. The interview was extensive, and at the end of the interview, the USCIS officer scheduled another interview for them. The officer was suspicious regarding the bona fideness of our client’s marriage.

On September 5, 2013, Attorney JP Sarmiento accompanied our client and her husband again at the Fairfax, VA USCIS office her second interview. The interview took more than one hour and the officer thoroughly asked our client and her husband about the bona fide nature of the marriage and some martial issues that the officer had suspicions on.

On April 26, 2014, the USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID).  The NOID claimed that there was substantial and probative evidence that the marital union between the Petitioner and Beneficiary is not bona fide.  Moreover, the NOID points out that the submitted documentation of Petitioner and Beneficiary does not establish a bona fide nature of their marriage. Lastly, the NOID claimed that there were no third party affidavits for their marital relationship.

In response to the USCIS’s NOID, our office helped our clients draft an extensive affidavit. Multiple supporting documents and an affidavit from our client were all included as well as letters from their friends and neighbors, joint utility bills, joint insurance, and several pictures of our client and his wife in several occasions with different people.  Several legal authorities were cited based on particular issues discussed, and on May 22, 2014, we filed the Response to NOID prior to the 30-day deadline.

Finally, on November 7, 2014, the USCIS approved our client’s case. Both the I-130 Petition and I-485 Green Card Application were approved. Our client is now a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Velarde Hearing in Immigration Court

CLIENT: Nigerian

LOCATION: New Orleans Immigration Court

Our Nigerian client came to the United States in August 2011 with a valid F-1 student visa to study in a college. However, he did not maintain status and was placed in removal proceedings in July 2012. After he got a Notice to Appear, he appeared at his initial master calendar hearing at the New Orleans Immigration Court without an attorney.

In May, he contacted our office and asked us whether we can take his case. He was married to a US Citizen, but he also had two previous marriages and divorces, also to US Citizens. We told him an I-130 can be filed, but that we need bona fides from his first two marriages also. We explained that the strength of his wife’s I-130 for him would also depend on how he can prove that his first two marriages were in good faith.

He retained our office on May 16, 2014. He married his U.S. wife in May 2014 and our office filed the I-130 petition for our client with a bona fide marriage exemption letter and bona fide marital documents. We organized the exhibits so that bona fide evidence from his first two marriages are also shown. We filed the I-130 application to the USCIS on June 12, 2014.

On June 17, 2014, our attorney Glen Yu appeared at his master calendar hearings via telephonic appearance. Attorney Yu did pleadings for our client, requested adjustment of status relief for our client, and requested a continuance based on a pending I-130 petition. However, the DHS requested a Velarde hearing to the Court. The DHS requested this hearing to determine whether proceedings should be continued to allow USCIS to adjudicate the I-130. DHS argued that our client’s marriage to his U.S. citizen spouse is presumptively invalid under immigration purposes since he married his wife after initiation of removal proceedings.

A Velarde Hearing is a hearing to establish whether good cause exists to continue proceedings for adjudication of a pending I-130 petition. A variety of factors may be considered, including, but not limited to: (1) DHS’ response to the Motion to continue; (2) whether the underlying visa petition is prima facie approvable; (3) the Respondent’s statutory eligibility for adjustment of status; (4) whether the Respondent’s application for adjustment merits a favorable exercise of discretion; and (5) the reason for the continuance and any other relevant factors. Matter of Hashimi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009).

The Velarde hearing for our client was scheduled for August 18, 2014. Prior to the hearing, our office filed a brief in support and more documents to demonstrate the bona fide nature of our client’s marriage to his U.S. citizen wife.  Attorney Sung Hee Yu from our firm prepared him and his wife extensively via conference calls. He also represented our client at the Velarde Hearing at the New Orleans Immigration Court on August 18, 2014.

The hearing went well and as a result, the Court concluded that our client’s I-130 petition is prima facie approvable. The Immigration Judge granted a continuance based on the pending I-130 petition. His next master calendar hearing is scheduled for October 2015. Until then, and presumable eligible for further continuances, our client and his wife can wait for adjudication of the I-130 petition.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Fiancé Visa

PETITIONER: US Citizen in Ohio

BENEFICIARY: Nigerian Beneficiary in Spain

PETITION FILED: November 26, 2013

PETITION APPROVED: February 4, 2014

K-1 VISA APPROVED: June 20, 2014

Our client, a US Citizen Petitioner, met her Nigerian fiancé in March 2007 in Nigeria.  Over time, they started their relationship, and she went to Spain multiple times in 2012 and in 2013 after her fiancé moved to Spain.  When she visited his fiancé in July 2012, her fiancé proposed to her. Months after his proposal, she retained our firm to file a fiancé petition for him.

After retention, we informed our client about the necessary supporting documents to demonstrate the bona fide nature of their relationship. Our client retained our office on October 14, 2013. We helped her and her fiancé draft letters in support of the fiancé petition, and we filed the petition on November 26, 2013.

On February 4, 2014, the I-129F fiancé petition was approved. On June 20, 2014, our client’s fiancé appeared at the U.S. Embassy in Madrid, Spain for his K-1 visa interview. The interview went well, and on the same day, the U.S. Embassy issued his K-1 visa.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Green Card

CLIENT: Nigerian

LOCATION: Dallas, TX

Our client came to the United States in November 2010 with a B-2 Visitor’s Visa from Nigeria. After his authorized stay expired, he still remained in the United States.

He married a U.S. Citizen in February 2013.  Our client retained our office on February 28, 2013 for his I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application. Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application, together with all necessary supporting documents, on April 4, 2013. 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 calls. On July 12, 2013, our client was interviewed at the Dallas, Texas USCIS office.  Eventually, on January 23, 2014, her green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Nigerian
COURT LOCATION: Baltimore, Maryland / New York, NY
RESIDENCE: Brooklyn, NY

Our client came to the United States with valid B-2 visitors visa in 2002, and later married his previous U.S. Citizen wife. He filed his green card application based on his previous marriage, but they separated prior to the interview so he never got notice of his interview, denial and the eventual notice to appear in Court.

Years later, our client married his second U.S. Citizen spouse, and he again filed for his green card application himself. Prior to retaining our firm, he went to his I-130 and adjustment of status interview only to find out that he had a final order many years ago. He did not know about it. So his case was denied. He was told by the officer that he had to reopen his case. We met our client at our New York office and he retained us on August 2010 for the Motion to Reopen.

If an alien does not go to his or her scheduled hearing with the Immigration Court, regardless of the reason, you will on that day have an in absentia order of removal. Once this is triggered, you are susceptible to being detained and subsequently deported by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Through a Motion to Reopen, 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 the notice to appear. If the Notice to Appear was sent to the wrong address for example, then there’s a good basis for a Motion to Reopen.

On August 31, 2010, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Baltimore Immigration Court. Documentation of his address at the date of the final order, a detailed 4-page affidavit regarding his addresses and his circumstances around the final order date, documentation of the last address he provided to the immigration service prior to the final order date, and other supporting documents were submitted. The Department of Homeland Security did not file an opposition or response to our Motion. On November 8, 2010, our office called the Court to follow up and we were informed that the Motion was granted.  Upon approval of the Motion to Reopen, we filed a Motion to Change of Venue as well.  The Baltimore Immigration Court granted our Motion, and later our client’s venue was changed to New York, NY.

Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our client at his Master Calendar hearing at the New York Immigration Court in March 2011, and he explained that an I-130 is pending and that a Stokes interview should be scheduled soon. On September 15, 2011,
Attorney JP Sarmiento accompanied our client and his U.S. Citizen wife for their I-130 Stokes interview. The interview went well, and the USCIS officer determined that our client’s marriage to his U.S. citizen wife was bona fide.  On the same day, the I-130 petition was approved.

With the approved I-130 petition, we filed a request to join in a motion to terminate with the DHS.  After review of our client’s application, the DHS agreed to join the motion. On October 22, 2011, the New York Immigration Court granted our Motion to Terminate, so our client’s removal proceedings were terminated.  Thereafter, our client filed an I-485 Adjustment of Status application to the USCIS on October 25, 2011.

Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. There was no Request for Evidence.  Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients. On February 13, 2012, our client was interviewed at the New York City, NY USCIS.  We accompanied them at the interview as well. The interview went well, and our client’s green card application was approved on February 28, 2012.

After being in the U.S. for over 10 years and having a final order of removal for about nine years, our client finally has his permanent resident 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 Motion to Reopen success stories, please click here.

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: Motion to Reopen

CLIENT: Nigerian

COURT LOCATION: Baltimore, Maryland

RESIDENCE: Brooklyn, NY

Our client was a legal entry overstay, married to his U.S. Citizen wife. Prior to retaining our firm, he went to his I-130 and adjustment of status interview only to find out that he had a final order many years ago. He did not know about it. He was told by the officer that he had to reopen his case. We met the client at our New York office and he retained us on August 2010 for the Motion to Reopen.

If you do not go to your scheduled hearing with the Immigration Court, regardless of the reason, you will on that day have an in absentia order of removal. Once this is triggered, you are susceptible to being detained and subsequently deported by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

A lot of people have different reasons for not going to Court. Some did not know what to do. Some did not know the repercussions of not going to Court and did not go. Some were sick or got into an accident earlier that day. Some did not receive notice of the hearing and did not know about it.

To rescind the final order, one has to get his case reopened. This is done through a Motion to Reopen filed with the Immigration Judge who gave the final order. When you have an in absentia order of removal and a Motion to Reopen based on lack of notice is filed on your behalf, your deportation is also stayed. This means that while this motion is pending, the DHS cannot deport you.

Based on this Motion to Reopen, 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 the 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 there’s a good basis for a Motion to Reopen.

On August 31, 2010, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Baltimore Immigration Court. Documentation of his address at the date of the final order, a detailed 4-page affidavit regarding his addresses and his circumstances around the final order date, documentation of the last address he provided to the immigration service prior to the final order date, and other supporting documents were submitted. The Department of Homeland Security did not file an opposition or response to our Motion. On November 8, 2010, our office called the Court to follow up and we were informed that the Motion was granted. Our client now does not have the final order of removal and may seek relief with the Immigration Court, or seek termination of proceedings for CIS adjudication of his 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. 

{ Comments on this entry are closed }