CASE: PERM Labor Certification    
EMPLOYER: Dental Group in Cleveland, OH
BENEFICIARY: Korean Dentist

Our client is from South Korea, who is currently in H-4 status. Her prospective employer was willing to do an immigration petition for her, third-preference. Our client has a Bachelor of Fashion Design Degree and she used to work as a fashion designer in South Korea. After talking to our client, our firm concluded that her prospective employer can petition her as a Fashion Design and Display Manager. Based on our client’s educational, professional and working backgrounds, our office determined that she is clearly eligible for EB-3 classification.

Prior to filing PERM, our firm prepared the prevailing wage request, job order, advertisements, internal job posting, recruitment report, and all other steps which are important pre-PERM filing. Take note that PERM could be filed at least 60 days from the job posting date or 30 days from the last ad. On February 5, 2016, the prevailing wage request was filed.  After we obtained Prevailing Wage determination, our office filed the job order on May 5, 2016.  On July 15, 2016, we promptly filed PERM.  Eventually, on October 5, 2016, the PERM Labor Certification was approved – an EB3 position for the Korean beneficiary. Now our client can file the I-140 petition.

{ 0 comments }

CASE:  Immigrant Visa / I-601A Provisional Unlawful Presence Hardship Waiver of Inadmissibility

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Chinese

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio / Guangzhou, China (Visa Interview)

Our client came to the United States from China in August 2001 without inspection and admission. She married her U.S. citizen husband in 2007. They have two U.S. citizen children together.  Her U.S. Citizen husband filed an I-130 petition for her on August 1, 2012. This I-130 petition was approved on March 29, 2013.

Our client cannot file for adjustment of status application due to her ground of inadmissibility. She needs a waiver of inadmissibility to become a green card holder. Moreover, our client was placed in removal proceedings, but with our office’s assistance, her removal proceedings were administratively closed in April 2015 to file a provisional waiver application.

Under current law, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are not eligible to adjust status in the United States must travel abroad and obtain an immigrant visa. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence while in the United States must obtain a waiver of inadmissibility to overcome the unlawful presence bars under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act before they can return to the United States.

In 2013, the USCIS announced of new policy called the provisional unlawful presence waiver. Beginning March 4, 2013, certain immigrant visa applicants who are spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens (immediate relatives) can apply for provisional unlawful presence waivers before they leave the United States. The provisional unlawful presence waiver process allows individuals, who only need a waiver of inadmissibility for unlawful presence, to apply for a waiver in the United States.

The new process is expected to shorten the time U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives while those family members are obtaining immigrant visas to become lawful permanent residents of the United States.

INA § 212(i) provides for a discretionary waiver of the entry without inspection inadmissibility ground. To qualify for the waiver, the alien must establish that his or her US Citizen spouse would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission. INA § 212(i)(1). In addition to the equities presented, the USCIS may consider the nature of the inadmissibility ground.

There is a seminal BIA case that deals with this waiver.  In Matter of Cervantes, 22 I & N Dec. 560 (BIA 1999), the BIA identified the factors to be considered in determining whether a qualifying relative would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission.  Those factors include: the presence of LPR or USC family ties both within and outside the United States; the conditions in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties to that country; the financial impact of departure from the United States; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to the unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate.

Our client’s I-601A application had a good chance since our client’s U.S. Citizen husband and son suffer from a great degree of medical hardship. In the I-601A brief and supporting documents, our office included extensive medical reports of her husband and her son.  We argued that if she was removed from the United States, extreme hardship to her husband is clearly foreseeable and evident.  Her husband has ongoing medical hardships and he would not be able to take care of his own needs and the bulk of their family chores, most importantly taking care of their children. Also, it would be extremely difficult for him to get the same level of therapy and satisfactory access to medical services in China in case he joins our client there.

In our brief, we also argued that our client and her husband have maintained strong family ties in the United States, that her husband will have difficulty in finding the same level of employment in China, that our client has good employment in the United States, and that his U.S. citizen child and her husband will face extreme financial and emotional difficulties if she is removed.

On October 15, 2015, we filed the I-601A waiver application which included the brief in support, her husband and son’s extensive medical examination records, and other documents that demonstrated hardship to her husband if she is removed from the United States. Eventually, without any RFE, her I-601A waiver was approved on February 2, 2016.

Once her I-601A waiver was approved, she retained our office again for her immigrant visa processing. First, our office filed the Motion to Re-Calendar / Terminate Removal Proceedings to the Cleveland Immigration Court to do our client immigrant visa processing work. The Motion was filed on February 16, 2016. The Immigration Court granted our Motion on March 14, 2106.

Thereafter, our office prepared and filed her immigrant visa application on July 25, 2016. Later, the U.S. Embassy in Guangzhou, China informed our office that they scheduled an immigrant visa interview for our client. Our client went back to China to appear at her interview on September 8, 2016. On September 8, 2016, our client appeared at her immigrant visa interview at the Consulate, and the Consulate officer approved her immigrant visa on the same day.

Now, our client can come back to the United States with an approved immigrant visa and she will get her green card in a mail within two months of her entry to the United States.  

{ 0 comments }

CASE: H-1B Visa Petition
PETITIONER: Healthcare staffing firm
BENEFICIARY: Pharmacist
ISSUES: Cap-Exempt, Research Organization, Off-Site Employment

Our client is one of the leading healthcare staffing firms in Northeast Ohio, serving the general staffing needs of regional hospitals and clinics. They contacted our office in early March to seek legal assistance from our office for their foreign employee’s H-1B Extension.

The beneficiary is a licensed pharmacist who obtained his Doctor of Pharmacy degree in the United States. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is a Pharmacist. We showed that this is a “specialty occupation” because the minimum requirement for this position is a Doctor of Pharmacy Degree with a registered Pharmacist license. With our office’s legal assistance, she got her H-1B in May 2013.

Her H-1B extension is quite unique due to the nature of her employment. The Petitioner is qualified for some of the exemption provisions for the H-1B cap. We explained that we can argue the nonprofit exemption, as well as cite some CIS memorandums regarding eligibility for H-1B petitions despite off-site employment. We showed that the main reason for cap-exemption is that the foreign employee will be placed at two hospitals which are non-profit research organizations as defined in 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(19)(iii)(C).

Our office argued that this H-1B petition is exempted from the H-1B numerical limitations (cap-exempt) because the Petitioner will employ the beneficiary to perform job duties at non-profit research organizations (two hospitals) as defined in 8 C.F.R. 214(h)(19)(iii)(C) that directly and predominately furthers the normal, primary, or essential purpose, mission, objectives, or function of the qualifying institution (nonprofit research).

We also argued that these two hospitals are clearly qualified as non-profit research organizations as defined in 8 C.F.R. 214(h)(19)(iii)(C). These two organizations are primarily engaged in basic research and/or applied research. Moreover, the beneficiary’s job duties, which will be performed on-site at qualifying non-profit research organizations, will be similar to those performed by actual employees (Pharmacists) of the two hospitals in the furtherance of the qualifying entities’ mission.

Furthermore, we explained that the Petitioner will comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements of the H-1B non-immigrant classification for the placement of the beneficiary at the two hospitals during the period of employment.  We mentioned that the beneficiary will be paid higher than the prevailing wage for the pharmacist position by the Petitioner, and Petitioner-Employer will maintain an employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary. The Petitioner has the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis as well. We explained that the Petitioner has a sole right to hire, pay, and has the ability to fire the beneficiary as well.

Once retained, our office filed the H-1B visa extension petition with various supporting documents on March 15, 2016.

Eventually, our client’s H-1B application was approved on September 22, 2016 without any Request for Evidence (RFE).  She can now work for her employer for three more years.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization)

APPLICANT: Chinese

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client contacted us in April 2016 to seek legal representation for his naturalization and citizenship N-400 application. He came to the United States from China and obtained his green card in September 2007.

Once retained, his N-400 application was filed on April 16, 2016 with all supporting documents. Prior to his citizenship interview, our office prepared him. On August 29, 2016, our client appeared at the Cleveland, OH USCIS office for his naturalization interview. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our client as well. Our client answered all questions correctly and passed his naturalization and citizenship interview. Eventually, his application was approved on September 1, 2016. His oath taking is scheduled in which he will become a naturalized U.S. Citizen.

{ 0 comments }

CASE:   I-601A Hardship Waiver of Inadmissibility

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Guatemalan

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States from Guatemala in 2003 without inspection and admission. He married his U.S. citizen wife in 2007. With our firm’s legal assistance, his U.S. Citizen wife filed an I-130 petition for him in 2013. This I-130 petition was approved on July 1, 2014.

However, our client cannot file for adjustment of status application due to his ground of inadmissibility (entry without inspection and admission). He needed a waiver of inadmissibility to become a green card holder.

Under current law, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are not eligible to adjust status in the United States must travel abroad and obtain an immigrant visa. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence while in the United States must obtain a waiver of inadmissibility to overcome the unlawful presence bars under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act before they can return to the United States

In 2013, the USCIS announced of new policy called the provisional unlawful presence waiver. Beginning March 4, 2013, certain immigrant visa applicants who are spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens (immediate relatives) can apply for provisional unlawful presence waivers before they leave the United States. The provisional unlawful presence waiver process allows individuals, who only need a waiver of inadmissibility for unlawful presence, to apply for a waiver in the United States.

The new process is expected to shorten the time U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives while those family members are obtaining immigrant visas to become lawful permanent residents of the United States.

INA § 212(i) provides for a discretionary waiver of the entry without inspection inadmissibility ground. To qualify for the waiver, the alien must establish that his or her US Citizen spouse would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission. INA § 212(i)(1). In addition to the equities presented, the USCIS may consider the nature of the inadmissibility ground.

There is a seminal BIA case that deals with this waiver.  In Matter of Cervantes, 22 I & N Dec. 560 (BIA 1999), the BIA identified the factors to be considered in determining whether a qualifying relative would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission.  Those factors include: the presence of LPR or USC family ties both within and outside the United States; the conditions in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties to that country; the financial impact of departure from the United States; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to the unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate.

Our client’s I-601A application had a good chance since our client’s U.S. Citizen wife suffers from a great degree of hardship. Moreover, their U.S. citizen children suffer from great degree of medical hardships. Although their U.S. citizen children are not considered as “qualifying relatives” for the I-601A, we argued that children’s medical hardship is also hardship to our client’s U.S. citizen wife, by virtue of having to take care of them (children with medical / special needs) is an extreme hardship to her. In the I-601A brief and supporting documents, our office included extensive medical reports of his children.  We argued that if he was removed from the United States, extreme hardship to his wife is clearly foreseeable and evident.  She would not be able to take care of her own needs and the bulk of their family chores, most importantly taking care of their child. Also, it would be extremely difficult for her and their kids to get the same level of therapy and satisfactory access to medical services in Guatemala in case they join our client there.

In our brief, we also argued that our client and his wife have maintained strong family ties in the United States, that his wife will have difficulty in finding the same level of employment in Guatemala, and that his U.S. citizen child and his wife will face extreme emotional difficulties if he is removed.

On March 11, 2016, we filed the I-601A waiver application which included the brief in support, his wife’s extensive medical examination records, and other documents that demonstrated hardship to his wife if he is removed from the United States. Eventually, his I-601A waiver was approved on September 6, 2016. Now, he can file packet 3 and 4 here in the United States, and would go to Guatemala shortly to get his immigrant visa.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Adjustment of Status Based on Approved K-1 Visa

CLIENT: Filipina

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in January 2016 as a K-1 visa entrant from the Philippines.  Our client is the beneficiary of an approved I-129F petition. She came to the United States as a K-1 Fiancée of a U.S. Citizen whom she married within 90 days of her entry. By law, if you married your petitioner-fiancé within 90 days of your K-1 visa entry, you are eligible to apply for adjustment of status (green card) in the United States. She also has a minor child who came with her with valid K-2 visa.

Our client contacted our office initially in May 2016 and consulted with us for her and her child’s adjustment of status application. After the retention, our firm quickly prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Applications on May 6, 2016.  Things went smoothly and the receipt notices, and the fingerprint appointment all came on time.  

It is not mandatory to have an adjustment of status interview for an applicant who entered on a K-1 visa.  However, the USCIS may require an interview to test the validity and bona fide nature of the marriage between the Petitioner and Beneficiary. The USCIS did not require an adjustment interview for our client.  On August 28, 2016, her green card application was finally approved. Her child (U.S. citizen’s step-child)’s adjustment of status application was also approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Adjustment of Status Based on Approved K-1 Visa

CLIENT: Nigerian

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

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.

Later, her fiancé came to the United States in July 2014 as a K-1 visa entrant. By law, if you married your petitioner-fiancé within 90 days of your K-1 visa entry, you are eligible to apply for adjustment of status (green card) in the United States. They married in August 2014.

Our client and her husband retained our office again for his adjustment of status application. After the retention, our firm quickly prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on February 6, 2015.  Things went smoothly and the receipt notices, and the fingerprint appointment all came on time.  

It is not mandatory to have an adjustment of status interview for an applicant who entered on a K-1 visa.  However, the USCIS may require an interview to test the validity and bona fide nature of the marriage between the Petitioner and Beneficiary. Nevertheless, the USCIS scheduled an interview for our client. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients through conference calls. On May 10, 2016, our clients were interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied them at their interview as well. However, after the interview, the USCIS issued Request for Evidence for our client to submit more bona fide marital evidence. The response to RFE was filed timely.

Eventually, on August 23, 2016, his green card application was finally approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-140 (EB-3)

EMPLOYER: Engineering Company

BENEFICIARY: Taiwanese Radio Frequency Identification Engineer

LOCATION: Columbus, OH

Our client is currently working as a Radio Frequency Identification Engineer (RFID) whose current employer willing to petition him for a third-preference petition (I-140).  Our client has a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in a related field and working experience. He has been working for his current employer under H-1B status. Based on our client’s educational, professional and working background, our office determined that he is clearly eligible for EB-3 classification for his I-140 petition.  Our client eventually retained us in March 2015.

Prior to filing PERM, our firm prepared the prevailing wage request, job order, advertisements, internal job posting, recruitment report, and all other steps which are important pre-PERM filing. Take note that the PERM application could be filed at least 60 days from the job posting date or 30 days from the last ad. Within a week from our retention, the prevailing wage request was filed.  After we obtained the foreign degree evaluation report, our office filed the job order on August 31, 2015.  On November 11, 2015, we promptly filed PERM.

However, on April 14, 2016, the Department of Labor issued a request for audit. The DOL requested documents from Petitioner to determine whether the recruitment process was done properly. In response to the Audit request, our office prepared the response to Audit brief along with Employer’s declaration, notice of filing, and recruitment documentation on April 29, 2016.  

Eventually, on June 30, 2016, the PERM Labor Certification was approved – an EB3 position for the Taiwanese beneficiary. We then proceeded with the I-140 Petition filing. We submitted the “ability to pay” letter for the I-140 petition application. We included the job offer letter, employer’s tax records, and other necessary supporting documents. The I-140 petition was filed on August 22, 2016 via premium processing service. Eventually, on August 31, 2016, the I-140 EB-3 Petition for our Taiwanese client was approved without any Request for Evidence (RFE). Now, our client can file his I-485 adjustment of status application since his priority date is current.  

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-140 (EB-2)
EMPLOYER: Dental Group in Cleveland, OH
BENEFICIARY: Korean Dentist

Our client is from South Korea, who is currently working in the United States as an associate dentist under H-1B status. His current employer is willing to do an immigration petition for him, second-preference. Our client has a Doctor of Dental Medicine degree in the United States. After talking to our client, our firm concluded that his employer can petition him as an associate dentist. Based on our client’s educational, professional and working backgrounds, our office determined that he is clearly eligible for EB-2 classification.

Prior to filing PERM, our firm prepared the prevailing wage request, job order, advertisements, internal job posting, recruitment report, and all other steps which are important pre-PERM filing. Take note that PERM could be filed at least 60 days from the job posting date or 30 days from the last ad. On September 29, 2015, the prevailing wage request was filed.  After we obtained Prevailing Wage determination, our office filed the job order on December 10, 2015.  On March 1, 2016, we promptly filed PERM.  Eventually, on July 8, 2016, the PERM Labor Certification was approved – an EB2 position for the South Korean beneficiary.

We then proceeded with the I-140 Petition filing. We submitted the “ability to pay” letter for the I-140 petition application. We included the job offer letter, employer’s tax records, and other necessary supporting documents. The I-140 Petition was filed on August 22, 2016 via premium processing service. Eventually, on August 29, 2016, the I-140 EB-2 Petition for our Korean client was approved without any Request for Evidence (RFE). Our client can file his I-485 adjustment of status application once his priority date becomes current.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Nigerian

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in May 2011 on an F-1 Student visa from Nigeria. She married a U.S. Citizen in October 2014 and retained our office for her petition and adjustment of status application.

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

Once retained, our firm prepared and filed the I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application on January 29, 2016. 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 August 18, 2016, our clients were interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied them at their interview as well. On August 23, 2016, our client and her son’s green card applications were approved.

{ 0 comments }