CASE: Marriage-Based Green Card (Same Sex Marriage Case / LGBT / DOMA)

CLIENT: Australian

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client came to the United States in May 2005 with a B-2 Visitor’s Visa from Australia. Later that year, he changed his status from B-2 to F-1 to pursue his degree in the United States. He has maintained his status in the United States as an F-1 student after that. Since 2005, our client and his current U.S. citizen spouse were in a relationship.

On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of “marriage” and “spouse” to apply only to heterosexual unions, by Section 3 of the defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013). After the Windsor decision, the USCIS implemented a new policy that the USCIS officer must review immigration via petitions filed on behalf of a same-sex spouse in the same manner as those filed on behalf of an opposite-sex spouse. As long as a same-sex couple is married in a U.S. state that recognizes same-sex marriage, their marriage shall be considered a valid marriage under the immigration law.

After DOMA was struck down, our client and his current U.S. citizen spouse, decided to get married. They married in New York in July 2013 where same-sex marriages are recognized.

Our client contacted our office and retained us on August 5, 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 August 12, 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 at our office. On January 2, 2014, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu accompanied them as well.  Eventually, on January 8, 2014, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: BIA Motion to Reopen and Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition

CLIENT: Peruvian
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client is from Peru who came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitor’s visa in July 2002 with his family. When he came to the United States, he was a only a minor.

Later, his father filed for asylum and withholding of removal, but the Immigration Judge in Cleveland denied all applications for relief in February 2010. Accordingly, our client’s asylum relief (our client was a derivate applicant of his father’s asylum application) was denied as well.

His father filed an appeal to the BIA, but in May 2012, the Board affirmed the Immigration Judge’s findings and dismissed the appeal. Unfortunately, our client’s father was deported soon after the BIA appeal was dismissed.

Our client remained in the United States despite the final order of removal. He was under order of supervision. He married his current U.S. citizen wife in September 2012, and he inquired on whether he has any viable option for his immigration status.  After careful review, our office determined that we can file a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen based on the I-130 approval and Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum. Our client retained our office on September 11, 2012.

Once retained, our client’s wife filed the I-130 petition for our client on September 18, 2012. Our office prepared and filed the petition. The I-130 interview was scheduled and prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients at our office. On March 5, 2013, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied them as well. Eventually, on April 17, 2013, the I-130 petition was approved.

While the I-130 was pending, our office also filed Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen and Terminate to the Cleveland DHS office on October 1, 2012. Our office prepared an extensive brief along with multiple supporting documents to request a favorable exercise of DHS’s discretion on this case. We argued that DHS should consider the following factors as set forth in Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum: (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. Bo Cooper, Motions to Reopen for Consideration of Adjustment of Status (May 17, 2001). 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. § 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.” William J. Howard, Prosecutorial Discretion (October 24, 2005).

Our office argued that if our client’s case is reopened, he will be prima facie eligible to adjust his status. Our client has been living in the United States since 2002, has no criminal record, was a minor at the time of the entry to the U.S., and has an approved I-130 petition.

As a result, the DHS office agreed to join in our Motion to Reopen and Terminate. The DHS filed the joint motion to the BIA in September 2013. Finally, the BIA ordered our client’s case to be reopened and terminated our client’s case on November 26, 2013. Now, he can file an I-485 adjustment of status application to the USCIS for his permanent residency.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Dependency Hearing at Juvenile Court

CLIENT: Guatemalan

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in September 2012 from Guatemala. He came to the United States without the inspection and admission and was caught at the border. After that the DHS released him, but he was placed in removal proceedings. He came to Cleveland, OH to be reunited with his older brother who resides in the Cleveland area.

He retained our office in April 2013 for representation at his deportation proceedings. On June 4, 2013, our client appeared at the Cleveland Immigration Court for his master calendar hearing. Attorney Yu from our office represented him, did pleadings and sought asylum relief. After the hearing, our office also sought other options for our client since he was a minor.

Section 203(b)(4) of the INA allocates a percentage of immigrant visas to individuals considered “special immigrants” under section 101(a)(27) of the INA, including those aliens classified as special immigrant juveniles under Section 101(a)(27)(J). “Special Immigrant Juvenile” includes only those juveniles deemed eligible for long-term foster care based on abuse, neglect, or abandonment.  To be eligible as a SIJ, the DHS’ express consent to the juvenile court’s dependency order is required. Then, the approved SIJ petition (Form I-360) makes a minor petitioner immediately eligible to adjust status by filing an adjustment of status application.

Our client was 17 years old when he contacted our office. In fact, our client was not supported by his parents and had to work in farms to support himself since he was 8 years old in Guatemala. Our client’s sister-in-law, who is a U.S. citizen and lives with our client, would like to be a legal guardian of our client. With our help, she filed a complaint for him to be deemed a neglected child to Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court on October 10, 2013.

The Juvenile court hearing was scheduled on November 26, 2013. Attorney JP Sarmiento represented our client and his sister-in-law at the hearing. Eventually, on the same day, the court found that our client is neglected and dependent and our client’s sister-in-law was appointed legal guardian.

After that, our office filed the I-360 application on December 2, 2013 to the USCIS. The application was supported by a court order declaring dependency by the juvenile court, court order deeming the juvenile eligible for long-term foster care due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment, determination from the juvenile court that it is in our client’s interest not to be returned to Guatemala, and his birth certificate.

Our client’s I-360 interview is scheduled for January 10, 2014 at the Cleveland USCIS Field Office. If the USCIS grants his I-360 application, our office can terminate his proceedings with the Immigration Court. Once it is terminated, our client can file his adjustment of status application.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization)
APPLICANT: Burmese / Myanmar
LOCATION: Ohio

Our client contacted us in May 2013 to seek legal representation for his naturalization and citizenship N-400 application. He came to the United States from Myanmar and obtained his green card in May 2006. He retained our office for his naturalization and citizenship N-400 application on May 21, 2013. He was concerned about his petty theft conviction and arrest for alleged “cheating” in his driver’s license application.

The naturalization and citizenship N-400 application was filed on June 20, 2013 with all supporting documents. Our office prepared him before his naturalization interview, and also accompanied him on September 3, 2013 at the Cleveland CIS office. Our client passed his naturalization and citizenship N-400 interview. However, his N-400 case remained pending due to his former criminal convictions. The USCIS officer asked our client to submit a certified copy of his criminal record and appear at a second interview.

On November 4, 2013, our client appeared at his second N-400 interview at the Cleveland USCIS Field Office with the certified record. Our attorney accompanied him as well. He answered all eligibility questions correctly during the interview. Eventually, his naturalization application was approved on December 23, 2013. His oath taking is scheduled in which he will become a naturalized U.S. Citizen.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-130 and Consular Processing (Immigrant Visa)

CLIENT: Chinese LPR Petitioner in Ohio; Chinese Beneficiary Wife and Daughter in China

LOCATION: Petitioner: Ohio; Beneficiaries: China

Our client retained us to bring his wife and daughter from China to the United States. He is a permanent resident and got married to his wife in 2011. Initially, he retained our office in July 2011 to file the I-130 petitions for his wife. After we were retained, we prepared and filed the I-130 petition for our client’s wife on July 28, 2011. Eventually, this I-130 petition was approved by the USCIS on April 16, 2012.

In April of this year, he retained our office again after the priority date became current for the immigrant visa processing for his wife and his newly born daughter. He retained our office on April 10, 2013.

On June 28, 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 wife at the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, and we prepared her for her interview. On November 20, 2013, after the interview, the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, China approved and issued her and her daughter’s immigrant visas.

With the approved immigrant visa, our client’s wife and daughter can come to the United States immediately, and she will get her green card within two weeks of entry.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-130

CLIENT: LPR Father; Chinese Beneficiary Sons in China

LOCATION: Petitioner: Ohio; Beneficiary: China

I-130 FILED: July 25, 2013

I-130 APPROVED: November 14, 2013

Our client came to the United States with an immigrant visa after his US Citizen daughter petitioned him through consular processing. As a result, he got his immigrant visa on June 3, 2013 and came to the United States shortly after.

Once he came to the United States, he wanted to I-130 petitions for his two minor sons in China. So, he retained us on July 18, 2013 to bring his sons over from China.  On July 25, 2013, our firm filed the I-130 Petitions to the USCIS. There were no Requests for Evidence throughout the pendency of the petition. Eventually, on November 14, 2013, the I-130 Petitions were approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751 / Waiver of the Joint Waiver Requirement

APPLICANT: Russian

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client contacted our office in later February of this year regarding her potential I-751 filing. She is from Russia and married a U.S. citizen in September 2011. Through her marriage with a U.S. citizen spouse, she obtained a 2-year conditional green card in April of 2012.

Unfortunately, their marriage ended in April 2013. Thus, our client could not file the I-751 application jointly with her ex-husband. After the consultation, we advised that we can help her file the I-751 application with a waiver of the joint filing requirement. We requested a waiver because our client entered into the marriage in good faith, but the marriage was terminated through divorce or annulment before they can file a joint petition.

On July 8, 2013, our office filed the I-751 application with various supporting documents (13 exhibits and an affidavit over 4 pages) to demonstrate our client’s bona fide marriage with her ex-husband.  However, on September 3, 2013, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) and asked our client to submit more documentary evidence to prove the bona fide nature of her marriage to her ex-husband. Our office thoroughly prepared the Response to RFE and filed it on October 28, 2013.  Eventually, on November 20, 2013, the USCIS approved our request for the removal of conditions on her permanent resident status without even an interview. Now, she has her ten-year green card.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-485 (Based on EB-2 I-140 Approval)

CLIENT: Kenyan Nurse Practitioner

LOCATION: Akron, Ohio

Our client is a certified nurse practitioner, who is currently working at a nursing care company in Akron, Ohio under an OPT. Her employer was willing to petition her for a second-preference employment immigrant visa petition (I-140). Since she was a certified nurse practitioner, 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 having to file a Labor Certification with the Department of Labor. 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. We argued that the position of Nurse Practitioner is included in Schedule A.

Our client has both a Bachelors and Masters degree in nursing. Our office was retained in May 21, 2013 and we started the Prevailing Wage Determination filing and other related matters.

We filed the I-140 application on September 17, 2013 via premium processing. We included the job offer letter, the notice of filing, her pay stubs, and other necessary supporting documents. In our cover brief, we included the “ability to pay” argument and why nurse practitioners must fall under the Schedule A designation.  On September 30, 2013, without any Requests for Evidence (RFE), the USCIS Nebraska Service Center approved her EB-2 I-140 petition.

When we filed her I-140 petition, the priority date for Kenyan nationals was current for the EB-2 category, thus we also filed her I-485 adjustment of status application concurrently. Eventually, on November 29, 2013, her adjustment of status application was approved by the USCIS. Also, her husband, who applied as a derivative, got his green card at the same time.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Green Card

CLIENT: Korean

LOCATION: Cincinnati, Ohio

Our client came to the United States in December 2011 with an F-1 Student Visa from South Korea to do her ESL program in the United States. After she completed her ESL program, she remained in the United States.

She married a U.S. Citizen in August 2013.  Our client retained our office on August 7, 2013 for her 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 August 15, 2013. 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 through conference calls. On November 25, 2013, our client was interviewed at the Cincinnati, Ohio USCIS office. Attorney JP Sarmiento accompanied them as well.  On the same day, her green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Green Card

CLIENT: Chinese

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client came to the United States in August 2009 with an F-1 Student Visa from China to pursue her Master’s degree in the United States. Later, she met her current U.S. Citizen husband and married him in April 2013.

Our client contacted our office and retained us on August 20, 2013 for her 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 September 5, 2013. 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 at our office. On November 21, 2013, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS office. Attorney JP Sarmiento accompanied them as well.  On November 21, 2013, her green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }