CASE: Reentry Permit for LPRs (I-131)
CLIENT: South African
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client contacted us in the middle of June and sought legal assistance for him and his family’s re-entry permit applications. They are South African nationals and lawful permanent residents (LPR) since 2008. Our client needed to get a re-entry permit because they were planning to stay in the Philippines for next two years. Our client has a business in Ohio which does substantial business in the Philippines. He has a wife and three kids, and they will not likely be able to come back to the United States within six months. The kids go to school in the Philippines, and they were concerned because they got their reentry permits before. They were only going to be in States for 3 weeks. We met 2 days after they arrived.

Generally, being a Permanent Resident of the U.S., you can travel without restraint outside of the U.S. But if the trip duration is greater than one year, but less than two years, then a reentry permit is needed to enter the U.S. Even if the trip is between six months and one year, it is still advisable to get a reentry permit, to avoid the rebuttable presumption that residency is disrupted.

Our client was planning to be in the Philippines for the next twenty months, so the reentry permit is clearly needed when he comes back to the United States. He has been in the Philippines most of the time that he was a permanent resident, so he was concerned his case will be denied.

Our office filed Form I-131 with other supporting documents to the USCIS on June 13, 2012. Despite the I-131 being a seemingly simple form and application, we attached a substantial brief to the form, explaining his maintenance of residence in the United States through his address, bank statements, and business (registered in Ohio), and that it so happens that the business does a lot of work in the Philippines. A lot of supporting documents were also attached. We demonstrated that our client and his family members do not intend to abandon their permanent residency in the United States.

They had to go back to the Philippines as the children were about to go to school. You can apply and get a reentry permit even though you need to travel immediately as long as you get fingerprinted before your departure. So we advised them to leave only after they get fingerprinted. Even though there was a set fingerprint date on their notices, we were able to have them take prints before the set date.

On August 23, 2012 and on September 17, 2012, the USCIS issued re-entry permits for our client and his family members.

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 success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-140 / National Interest Waiver

NATIONALITY: Korean

LOCATION: Ohio

Our South Korean client came to the U.S. on a J-1 Visa in August 2008.  He was here for a NASA research fellowship, but his J-1 program made him subject to the two-year foreign residence requirement.  He retained our office for his J-1 waiver, I-140 National Interest Waiver Classification (NIW) and I-485 Adjustment of Status applications.

We got his J-1 waiver approved on February 6, 2012, details of which are in a previous success story. Afterwards, we started working on his NIW application. Our client is a researcher and scientist in the field of Aerospace Science and Engineering, and is currently working as a research specialist at NASA.  Upon review of his credentials and qualifications, our office determined that he was qualified for the National Interest Waiver (NIW) category. The NIW is beneficial because one would not need an employer nor family member to petition for you.

As a primer, NIW applicants must have a master’s or higher degree. The landmark immigration case that discusses the standards for NIWs is Matter of New York State Department of Transportation , 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Comm.1998). This case held that the qualifying applicant must show the following elements in his or her I-140 NIW petition: First, it must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Next, it must be shown that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U. S. worker having the same minimum qualifications.

Our office prepared a 19-page brief for our client’s NIW filing. We asked our client to obtain 10 or more letters of recommendation.  Our office also included his publication records, presentation records, and conference materials.  We demonstrated the intrinsic merit of our client’s research in the United States, the national scope of his research, and asserted that our client would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. His NIW application contained 64 exhibits (Exhibit A to LLL).  Our office filed his I-140(NIW) petition to the USCIS on April 6, 2012.  On September 7, 2012, the USCIS approved his I-140 petition without any Requests for Evidence.

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 National Interest 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: Visa Waiver Overstay Marriage Green Card
ISSUES: Visa Waiver Overstay, Age Gap, Previous Divorces
CLIENT: Hungarian
LOCATION: Cleveland Ohio

Our client came to the United States in November 2009 as a visa waiver entrant from Hungary.  He married a U.S. Citizen in January 2012 and retained our office on February 21, 2012 for his adjustment of status application They were hesitant at first because he was a visa waiver overstay, and cases they’ve seen on the internet on visa waiver overstays were not too good. Both of them also have previous divorces. They also have a big age gap. So they were concerned about their chances of winning.

We reviewed their supporting documents and listened to their story, of how they met and fell in love. We also explained and showed a recent CIS memorandum on visa waiver overstays, more of a FAQ memo, stating that adjustment applications based on marriage to a US Citizen for visa waiver overstays should be adjudicated. Prior to this memorandum the CIS were split, granting some visa waiver overstay adjustments while some issue denials resulting to deportation without a removal hearing (for visa waiver, you waiver your right to contest removability in Court).

Our firm then prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on April 27, 2012.  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 July 20, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland Ohio USCIS office accompanied by Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu. The visa waiver memorandum was once again presented to avoid any possible issues. Supporting documents of their bona fide relationship were also submitted. On September 6, 2012, his 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.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: PERM Labor Certification
EMPLOYER: Electric Immersion Heater Manufacturer
BENEFICIARY: Indian Management Analyst
LOCATION: Cleveland Ohio

The beneficiary is a management analyst from India, who is currently working at an electric immersion heater manufacturing company in Cleveland Ohio. The company / petitioner was willing to petition him for a green card, in the second-preference category (EB2).  Our client has an MBA degree and has worked for this company since April 2012. He has maintained his status as an H-1B visa holder in the United States.  After talking to our client, our firm advised that his potential employer can petition him as a Management Analyst. It is a Job Zone 4 position, which typically does not merit an EB2 finding by the Department of Labor, but we thought the position was complex enough to merit an argument. Based on our client’s educational, professional and working background as an engineer and management analyst, our office determined that he is clearly eligible for the EB-2 classification for his I-140 petition.

Prior to filing the PERM labor certification application, 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 Labor Certification 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.  On June 29, 2012, we filed the PERM labor certification application. Two months later, on August 30, 2012, the PERM labor certification was approved – an EB2 position for a Job Zone 4 Position – Management Analyst – without an audit!

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 PERM 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: Chinese
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH / Immigration Court: Detroit Immigration Court

Our client came to the United States on a valid B-2 visa from China in 2002.  Later, she changed her status to F-1 and remained in the United States. She filed an I-485 application as a derivative applicant of her ex-husband in 2007.  However, while the application was pending, our client and her ex-husband got separated.  Unfortunately, in 2008, her I-485 adjustment of status application was denied.   She never received the denial notice from the USCIS since she moved to a different city in Ohio before her case was denied.  Thus, our client never received the Notice to Appear and was not apprised of the fact that she was placed in removal proceedings.  Accordingly, the Detroit Immigration Court issued an in absentia order of removal for our client in August 2010.

In January 2012, our client was picked up by ICE officers.  She was surprised to find out that she was being held because she had a final order of removal and missed her hearing in August 2010.  She explained her situation, so she was not detained, and was placed on an order of supervision. Our client contacted our firm and eventually retained us in March 2012.  Once we were retained, we asked our client to check with her ex-husband or her relatives whether they received the Notice to Appear for her.  We told her that we have to reopen her case first before she can even apply for relief at the Immigration Court.

To rescind the final order, she has to get her case reopened. This is done through a Motion to Reopen filed with the Immigration Judge who gave the final order. 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 notice of the hearing.

On July 31, 2012, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Detroit Immigration Court. Documentation of her address at the date of the final order, a detailed affidavit regarding her addresses and her circumstances around the final order date, documentation of the last address she provided to the immigration service prior to the final order date, and other supporting documents were submitted (20 exhibits). On August 16, 2012, the Detroit Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case. Our client now does not have the final order of removal anymore and will seek asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the CAT with the Immigration Court.

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 success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization w/ Rebuttable Presumption and Continuity of Residence Issues)
APPLICANT: Iranian
LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio
ISSUES: Rebuttable Presumption / Continuous Residence

Our client contacted us in March 2012 to seek legal representation for his naturalization application. He came to the United States from Iran and obtained his green card through his U.S. Citizen son’s petition in March 2007. He retained our office for his naturalization application on March 23, 2012. The main issue of his naturalization case was two long, over six-month trips that he had within the past four years.

According to INA §316(b) and 8 C.F.R. §316.5.(c)(1)(i), an absence between 6 months and 1 year from the United States raises a rebuttable presumption that continuity of residence has been interrupted. That would be an issue in naturalization cases, where continuity of residence is essential. Applicants with this issue should rebut that presumption should they wish to apply.

Our client was out of the U.S. more than 180 days twice.  During these trips, he was in Iran, but he could not come back to the United States earlier due to his medical condition.  Our client intended to have temporary trips of less than six months in those two trips. However, due to his medical condition and related health issues, he could not come back to the United States before his trip due to the advice of his doctors.  Moreover, our client already had chronic high blood pressures and heart-diseases in the United States as well.

Our office drafted an argument which explained our client’s medical conditions and argued that he is otherwise eligible for naturalization despite his two long trips to Iran.  We included two notarized affidavits from our client and his U.S. Citizen son, and included our client’s medical records from Iran and the U.S.

The brief and his N-400 application were filed on April 12, 2012 with all necessary supporting documents. Our office prepared him for his interview, and also accompanied him on August 7, 2012 at the Cleveland CIS office. Our client answered all questions correctly and passed his citizenship interview. We emphasized the brief as well and his reasons for his long trips to Iran. His N-400 was approved after the interview. His oath taking is scheduled soon where he will become a U.S. Citizen.

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 naturalization 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: Immigration Bond Court Hearing / Release from Detention
APPLICANT: Guatemalan
LOCATION: Cleveland Immigration Court, Ohio

Our office was contacted in the middle of July regarding a Guatemalan who was recently picked up by the Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) officers and detained in Ohio. He entered the United States without inspection in 2006.

Prior to retention, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement told us that they have a no bond issuance for our clients, because he was single, had a probation violation issue, has no family ties, and no permanent address. Our client wished to be released.

Upon retention, we filed a motion for bond redetermination with the Cleveland Immigration Court in Ohio. Our office communicated with our client and his U.S. resident relative in Cleveland, and gathered as much information regarding his relief, equities, family ties, and financial ability to post bond. We also gathered supporting documents from those relatives, from proof of their status and residence, to bank statements and tax returns.

On August 7, 2012, we represented our client at his Cleveland Immigration Court master calendar and bond hearings. For the Master Calendar hearing, we did pleadings and sought asylum relief. During the bond re-determination hearing, we explained to the Court that our client was not a flight risk, had established his residence upon release, had established his financial ability to post bond, and that he had ample family ties in the United States who submitted proof of their residence and immigration status. Our office explained that his designated address with contact information from his relative in the United States, ability to post bond, and eligibility for asylum relief clearly demonstrate that the bond should be set. At the end of the hearing, the Immigration Judge took our arguments into account and set the bond for our client at $7500.

Our client has been released, and he is now in the process of preparing his asylum application.

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 immigration bond hearing and release from detention 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: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization)
APPLICANT: Ukrainian
LOCATION: Ohio

Our client contacted us in March 2012 to seek legal representation for her naturalization and citizenship N-400 application. She came to the United States from Ukraine and obtained her green card in 1993. She retained our office for her naturalization and citizenship N-400 application on March 28, 2012.

The naturalization and citizenship N-400 application was filed on April 12, 2012 with all supporting documents. Our office prepared her before her naturalization interview, and also accompanied her on July 31, 2012 at the Cleveland CIS office. Our client answered all questions correctly and passed her naturalization and citizenship N-400 interview. Eventually, her naturalization application was approved. Her oath taking will be scheduled soon in which she will become a naturalized U.S. Citizen.

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 naturalization and citizenship N-400 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: Ethiopian
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in August 2009 with an F-1 Student visa from Ethiopia.  She married a U.S. Citizen in December 2011 and retained our office on March 31, 2012 for her adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on April 13, 2012.  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 July 24, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS.  On July 26, 2012, 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.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization)
APPLICANT: Ukraine
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client contacted us in March 2011 to seek legal assistance for his naturalization application. His main issue was his English language skills. Despite obtaining his green card in 1993, he said he did not speak good English.  He came to the United States from Ukraine and obtained his green card in 1993.  He retained our office on March 28, 2012 to assist in his citizenship application.

Our client was born in 1955. He became a Permanent Resident of the United States in1993. Under INA Section 312(b)(2) and 8 U.S.C. Section 1423(b)(2), the English language requirement shall not apply to (1) persons who are over 50 and have lived in the U.S. for 20 years in LPR status; or (2) persons who are over 55 and have lived in the United States for 15 years in LPR status.

When our firm was retained and prior to filing, our client was 57 years old and had lived in the United States as a green card holder for more than 18 years. Accordingly, we argued based on the said statute that he sufficiently met the waiver of the English Language Test, and that he was also permitted to take the civics test in his own language. Attorney Sung Hee Yu accompanied our client at the interview, and his naturalization interview was conducted in his native language.  On July 26, 2012, his naturalization application (N-400) was approved. His oath taking will be scheduled soon in which he will be a naturalized Citizen.

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 naturalization 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 }