CASE: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization)

APPLICANT: Indian

LOCATION:  Cleveland, OH

Our client contacted us in February 2016 to seek legal representation for his naturalization and citizenship N-400 application. He came to the United States from India and obtained his green card in May 2011 through his previous marriage to a US Citizen. He retained our office on February 10, 2016.

The N-400 application was filed on March 22, 2016 with all supporting documents. Prior to his citizenship interview, our office prepared him in our office. On June 13, 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 June 17, 2016. His oath taking is scheduled in which he will become a naturalized U.S. Citizen.

{ 0 comments }

Case: I-130/I-485

Applicant/Beneficiary – Australian

Location: Cincinnati, OH

Our client entered the United States in September 2004 from Australia under the visa waiver program. He came here to visit his U.S. citizen girlfriend (now his wife) for a couple months. As a Visa Waiver Entrant, he was only authorized to remain in the United States for 90 days. However, he decided to remain in the United States.  

Later, in March 2006, our client and his U.S. citizen girlfriend married in the United States. They have happily maintained their marital life. In 2015, our client and his wife contacted our office, and they retained us on June 29, 2015.

One main issue in his green card application through marriage was the fact that he came to the United States under the visa waiver program.   As our office wrote in our previous success story with a similar issue,  under the visa waiver program, citizens of certain countries can enter the U.S. for 90 days without a visa with the condition that the visitor waives his or her right to contest removal (other than on the basis of asylum).  The “no-contest” provision of the Visa Waiver Program is fundamental; if someone could enter under the VWP and then contest removability; it would defeat the whole purpose of the Program which is to make it easy for certain nationals to come to the United States to visit and then leave without all the red-tape involved in visa issuance.

Our office filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on February 22, 2016.  Our office requested the CIS to exercise favorable discretion in granting adjustment of status. 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 June 16, 2016, our client was interviewed at the Cincinnati, Ohio USCIS Field Office.  Despite the visa waiver issue, on the same day of the interview, the USCIS approved his green card application.  Now, our client is a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

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

Our client is from Nepal, who is currently working in the United States as an associate dentist under an F-1 (OPT) status. Her current employer is willing to do an immigration petition for her, second-preference. Our client has a Doctor of Dental Surgery degree in the United States. After talking to our client, our firm concluded that his employer can petition her as an associate dentist. Based on our client’s educational, professional and working background, our office determined that she 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 15, 2015, the prevailing wage request was filed.  After we obtained the Prevailing Wage determination, our office filed the job order on November 30, 2015.  On February 22, 2016, we promptly filed PERM.  Eventually, on June 14, 2016, the PERM Labor Certification was approved – an EB2 position for the Indian beneficiary. Now our client can file the I-140 petition.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization)

APPLICANT: Filipina

LOCATION:  Cleveland, OH

Our client contacted us in November 2015 to seek legal representation for her naturalization and citizenship N-400 application. She came to the United States from the Philippines and obtained her green card in May 2008 through her father. Her father became a naturalized citizen before she turned 18. When she went to the U.S. Embassy in the Philippines for her immigrant visa interview, she was told that she automatically became a U.S. citizen because her father became a citizen before she turned 18 (this was wrong because she had no physical presence in the US). Thus, two months after she entered the U.S., she applied for a U.S. passport. She obtained her approved U.S. passport, and thought from then that what she was told at the US Embassy was correct. The passport was actually incorrectly issued.

Later, her applied for an N-600 because she wanted to petition her husband and she needed a naturalization certificate, but it was denied. Her sister was told she had to wait 5 years. So in 2013, she applied for an N-600 again, and she was denied one more time. During her N-600 interview, she explained her situation to the officer and so USCIS learned about the US passport situation. It was then that her sister was advised to do her N-400 application.

Her sister’s N-600 application was denied because she was not a U.S. citizen. The automatic citizenship provision not only requires that her father be naturalized before she turns 18, but also that she be physically present in the US by that time. She did not know about this and she thought what she did was correct because her US passport application was approved. She was told at the U.S. Embassy in the Philippines that she is a U.S. citizen and she applied for her U.S. passport which was approved later.  

The issue in her case is the possibility of “false claim to US Citizenship”, which not only would get her citizenship case denied, but may also place her in deportation. Thus, it was important to thoroughly explain her situation so that fault won’t be attributed to her.

She retained our office on November 5, 2015. The N-400 application was filed on November 20, 2015 with all supporting documents. We included an extensive explanatory memo as well. Prior to her citizenship interview, our office prepared her at our office. On May 3, 2016, our client appeared at the Cleveland, OH USCIS office for her naturalization interview. Attorney JP Sarmiento from our office accompanied our client and explained our client’s complicated situation to the CIS officer. Our client answered all questions correctly and passed her naturalization and citizenship interview. Eventually, her application was approved on May 24, 2016. Her oath taking is scheduled in which she will become a naturalized U.S. Citizen.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Ukrainian

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States from Ukraine on a B-2 visitor’s visa in September 2015. She married a U.S. Citizen in November 2015 and retained our office on December 16, 2015 for her green card application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on December 21, 2015.  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 as well. On June 7, 2016, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our clients as well. Eventually, on the same day of the interview, her green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

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

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Guatemalan

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client came to the United States from Guatemala in January 2000 without inspection and admission. He married his U.S. citizen wife in 2006. They had two U.S. citizen children together.  His U.S. Citizen wife filed an I-130 petition for him on March 4, 2009. This I-130 petition was approved on June 5, 2009.

Our client cannot file for adjustment of status application due to his ground of inadmissibility. He needed a waiver of inadmissibility to become a green card holder. Moreover, our client was placed in removal proceedings, but with our office’s assistance, his removal proceeding was administratively closed in December 2013 to file the 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 wife 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 his wife and his son.  We argued that if he was removed from the United States, extreme hardship to his wife is clearly foreseeable and evident.  His wife has ongoing medical hardships and 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 children. Also, it would be extremely difficult for her to get the same level of therapy and satisfactory access to medical services in Guatemala in case she joins 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, that our client has good employment in the United States, and that his U.S. citizen child and his wife will face extreme financial and emotional difficulties if he is removed.

On March 11, 2015, we filed the I-601A waiver application which included the brief in support, his wife and son’s extensive medical examination records, and other documents that demonstrated hardship to his wife if he is removed from the United States.

However, on May 13, 2015, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) for our client’s case. USCIS explicitly requested our client to submit more evidence to prove extreme hardship to his U.S. citizen wife if he is forced to relocate in Guatemala. In response to this RFE, our office prepared a response brief along with more medical evidence of our client’s U.S. citizen wife. Our office filed the response to RFE on June 12, 2015.

Eventually, his I-601A waiver was approved on June 22, 2015.

Once his I-601A waiver was approved, he retained our office again for his immigrant visa processing. Our office prepared and filed his immigrant visa application on February 18, 2016. In April 2016, the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala informed our office that they scheduled an immigrant visa interview for our client. Our client went back to Guatemala to appear at his interview on May 3, 2016. On May 3, 2016, our client appeared at his immigrant visa interview at the Embassy, and the Consulate officer approved his immigrant visa.

Our client successfully came back to the United States with an approved immigrant visa and he will get his green card in a mail within two months.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751

APPLICANT: Russian

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client contacted our office in July of 2015 regarding her I-751 application.

She is from Russia and married a U.S. citizen in July 2013. Through her marriage, she obtained a 2-year conditional green card in November of 2013. Our office helped her in the green card process.  Her conditional residency terminated in November 2015.

To comply with immigration requirements, our client and her husband had to file an I-751 Joint Petition to Remove Conditions. She retained our office on August 10, 2015 and our office prepared an I-751 application for our client with supplemental exhibits.

On September 3, 2015, our office filed an I-751 application to the USCIS with multiple affidavits from her friends and family members, joint bank statements, utility bills, joint insurance documents, and photos of our client and her husband to demonstrate the bona fideness of their marriage.

Once the application was filed, the fingerprint notice was issued two weeks later. However, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) to demonstrate the bona fideness of our client’s marriage with her husband. We filed an extensive Response to RFE to the USCIS with more bona fide marital documents on April 29, 2016.

Eventually, on May 24, 2016, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Fiancée Visa

PETITIONER: US Citizen in Cleveland Ohio

BENEFICIARY: Russian

PETITION FILED: January 5, 2016

PETITION APPROVED: March 4, 2016

K-1 VISA APPROVED: May 10, 2016

Our client, a US Citizen Petitioner, met his Russian fiancée in Russia in 2014. They started their relationship in 2015 while he visited Russia again. His fiancée also visited the United States to see him in the summer of 2015. In October 2015, he proposed to her during his trip in Russia. After his proposal, he retained our firm to file a fiancée petition for her.

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 November 25, 2015. We helped him and his fiancée draft letters in support of the fiancé petition, and we filed the petition on January 5, 2016.

On March 4, 2016, less than two months of the filing, the I-129F fiancée petition was approved. On May 10, 2016, our client’s fiancée appeared at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, Russia for her K-1 visa interview. The interview went well, and on the same day, the U.S. Embassy issued her K-1 visa.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization)

APPLICANT: Filipina

LOCATION:  Cleveland, OH

Our client contacted us in November 2015 to seek legal representation for her naturalization and citizenship N-400 application. She came to the United States from the Philippines and obtained her green card in May 2008 through her father. Her father became a naturalized citizen before she turned 18. When she went to the U.S. Embassy in the Philippines for her immigrant visa interview, she was told that she automatically became a U.S. citizen because her father became a citizen before she turned 18 (this was wrong because she had no physical presence in the US). Thus, two months after she entered the U.S., she applied for the U.S. passport. She obtained her approved U.S. passport, and thought from then that what she was told at the US Embassy was correct. The passport was actually incorrectly issued.

Later, she applied for an N-600 because she wanted to petition her husband and she needed a naturalization certificate, but it was denied. She was told she had to wait 5 years. So in 2013, she applied for an N-600 again, and she was denied one more time. During her N-600 interview, she explained her situation to the officer and so USCIS learned about the US passport situation. It was then that she was advised to do her N-400 application.

Our client’s N-600 application was denied because she was not a U.S. citizen. The automatic citizenship provision not only requires that her father be naturalized before she turns 18, but also that she be physically present in the US by that time. She did not know about this and she thought what she did was correct because her US passport application was approved. She was told at the U.S. Embassy in the Philippines that she is a U.S. citizen and she applied for her U.S. passport which was approved later.  

The issue in her case is the possibility of “false claim to US Citizenship”, which not only would get her citizenship case denied, but may also place her in deportation. Thus, it was important to thoroughly explain her situation so that fault won’t be attributed to her.

She retained our office on November 5, 2015. The N-400 application was filed on November 20, 2015 with all supporting documents. We included an extensive explanatory memo as well. Prior to her citizenship interview, our office prepared her at our office. On February 2, 2016, our client appeared at the Cleveland, OH USCIS office for her naturalization interview. Attorney JP Sarmiento from our office accompanied our client and explained our client’s complicated situation to the CIS officer. Our client answered all questions correctly and passed her naturalization and citizenship interview. Eventually, her application was approved on April 25, 2016. Her oath taking is scheduled in which she will become a naturalized U.S. Citizen.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: H-1B Extension
PETITIONER:  Culture Center
BENEFICIARY: Chinese Assistant Program Development Director

Our client is a Culture Center in Ohio that offers after-school and weekend education programs for children and young students in the Greater Cleveland area. They contacted our office in April to seek legal assistance from our office for their foreign employee’s H-1B Extension.  The beneficiary is a Chinese who obtained her Bachelor’s Degree in Economics in China and also a MBA degree in the United States. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is an Assistant Program Development Director which we argued qualified as a specialty occupation.  She has been working for the Petitioner for the last three years on a valid H-1B visa.

After retention, our office filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on April 22, 2016 via premium processing. Eventually, without any RFE, our client’s H-1B application was approved on April 28, 2016. Now the Beneficiary can work for the Petitioner until 2019.

{ 0 comments }