On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of DHS, Janet Napolitano, issued a memorandum on new prosecutorial discretion standards pertaining to certain illegal aliens. She started by stating that immigrants who were illegally brought to the United States as children “lacked the intent to violate the law” and pose few national security risks.  If the individual meets the following criteria, that person will not be deported or removed from the United States as a result of the prosecutorial discretion.

• Came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
• Has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and is present  in the United States on the date of this memorandum;
• Is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general education development certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;
• Has not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety; and
• Is not above the age of thirty.

For individuals who are granted deferred action by either ICE or USCIS, USCIS shall accept applications to determine whether these individuals qualify for work authorization during this period of deferred action.

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

{ 0 comments }

The July 2012 Visa Bulletin is out, and please be informed that the EB2 Category is not current anymore for Mexico, Philippines, and “Other Countries”. India and China actually have an “unavailable” priority date and it will likely be “unavailable” until the October 2012 Visa Bulletin comes out.  Whereas other countries including the Philippines and Mexico have always been current on the EB2 category, now, based on the visa bulletin for July 2012, the priority date is January 1, 2009. This means that for Mexico, Philippines, and other countries, even if EB2 labor certifications are approved, the I-140 could not be filed simultaneous to the I-485 adjustment of status application. Even if the I-140 is approved, with the priority date listed as 2009, it may take close to 3 years before one can even file the adjustment of status application. For China and India, even those with I-140s approved and priority dates of 2008, 2009, and 2010 could not even file I-485s until the visa numbers become available, and their priority dates current.  Thus, it is very important to maintain non-immigrant status until the priority date becomes current again.

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

{ 0 comments }

On June 11, 2012, the SCIS received a sufficient number of petitions to reach the statutory cap for FY 2013.  On June 7, 2012, USCIS also received more than 20,000 H-1B petitions on behalf of persons exempt from the cap under the advanced degree exemption.  According to the USCIS’ Website, the USCIS will reject petitions subject to the cap for H-1B specialty occupation workers seeking an employment start date in FY 2013 (normally October 1, 2012) that are received after June 11, 2012.

Nevertheless, USCIS will continue to accept petitions exempted from the cap and DOD cooperative research worker H-1B petitions and Chile/Singapore H-1B1 petitions requesting an employment start date in FY 2013.

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status
CLIENT: India
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in December 2000 as an H-4 visa holder from India.  Although her authorized stay in the U.S. expired in January 2004, she has stayed in the United States since then. In September 2011, she married her U.S. Citizen husband and retained our office on October 11, 2011 for her adjustment of status application. Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on October 24, 2011. 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 February 10, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, OH USCIS. Our attorney accompanied them as well.

However, after the interview, the CIS office issued a Form I-72 asking for: a civil marriage certificate / abstract for our client and his previous husband, and an explanation as to why this marriage was not listed nor acknowledged during the interview. We reviewed the documents that she provided us after and realized that her previous marriage was only a religious marriage and not registered in the state of Ohio. Under immigration law, a religious marriage is considered a valid marriage for immigration purposes only if it is recognized by the sovereign in that country or state as a valid marriage.  Matter of Ceballos, 16 I&N Dec. 765 (BIA 1979).  Since our client’s previous religious marital ceremony was not registered in Ohio, it is not a valid marriage for immigration purposes. On May 8, 2012, our office filed a response to the Request for Evidence which included an affidavit from our client.

On May 30, 2012, our client’s I-485 adjustment of status application was approved. After 12 years in the United States, she is finally a permanent resident.

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:  I-485 Adjustment of Status under the INA 245(i) provision
CLIENT: Chinese
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client is from Hong Kong, China, who came to the U.S. without inspection and admission in August 2001. He never left the United States since he came.

In March 1990, our client’s uncle filed an I-130 (fourth preference) petition for his mother.  This I-130 petition was approved in April 1990.  At the time the I-130 Petition was approved, our client was a minor and was a derivative beneficiary. Later, our client’s father filed an I-130 petition on behalf of our client in March 2003.  This Petition was approved in June 2005.

Our client contacted us in February of 2012 for consultation. We determined that he is eligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(i). Our client retained us on March 1, 2012.

Section 245(i) of the INA allows certain foreign nationals to become permanent residents of the United States despite entering without inspection (EWI) or overstaying (if beneficiary of petitions filed not by an immediate relative). Immigrants are barred from adjusting their status if they entered the United States without first being inspected and admitted by a Customs and Border Patrol officer and if they have either failed to maintain lawful status or been unlawfully employed in the country, with certain exceptions. Section 245(i) was first added to law in 1994 to allow certain people who otherwise would not be eligible to adjust their status to be able to do so upon payment of a $1,000 fine.

Four years later, on January 14, 1998, Congress phased Section 245(i) out of law. Immigrants and their families who had already began the process of changing their status under Section 245(i) by January 14, 1998 were grandfathered into the section’s benefits. However, this left thousands of otherwise qualified persons who had not begun the process unable to adjust status in the United States. They could not return to their countries to begin the legal process of obtaining their permanent residency in the United States also without being subject to either a three- or a 10-year bar upon returning to the United States.

On December 21, 2000, Congress extended the qualifying date for Section 245(i) benefits to April 30, 2001. This law allowed immigrants who had labor certifications or visa petitions filed on their behalf between 1998 and April 30, 2001, to qualify for adjustment of status. Those who were beneficiaries of petitions filed prior to January 14, 1998 could still adjust despite an EWI record, and those people do not have to meet the December 2000 physical presence requirement.

Our client was the beneficiary of his father’s petition in March 2003, which is current, but this by itself would not have allowed him to adjust status since this was filed after January 1998 and because he came in 2001, thus not meeting the December 21, 2000 physical presence requirement. However, he was also the beneficiary of a petition filed before January 14, 1998, that of his uncle’s petition for his mother. So it was the two petitions that saved his case, one for 245i, and the other for adjustment eligibility.

Once retained, our office prepared and filed his adjustment of status application under the 245(i) provision. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices and fingerprint appointment all came on time.  We thoroughly prepared our client prior to his interview.  On June 8, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu accompanied him at the interview as well. Due to the complexity of the case, we made sure the officer was clear about our client’s 245i eligibility. On the same day, our client’s I-485 application was approved.  He finally became a green card holder.

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 245i 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: TPS Extension
Client: Salvadoran
Location: Cleveland, OH

The Secretary of Homeland Security may designate a foreign country for Temporary Protected Status due to conditions in the country that temporarily prevent the country’s nationals from returning safely, or in certain circumstances, where the country is unable to handle the return of its nationals adequately. USCIS may grant TPS to eligible nationals of certain countries (or parts of countries), who are already in the United States. Eligible individuals without nationality who last resided in the designated country may also be granted TPS. The Secretary may designate a country for TPS due to the following temporary conditions in the country: 1) Ongoing armed conflict (such as civil war); 2) An environmental disaster (such as earthquake or hurricane), or 3) an epidemic or other extraordinary and temporary condition. During the designated period, individuals who are TPS beneficiaries or who are found preliminarily eligible for TPS upon initial review of their cases (prima facie eligible): are not removable from the United States, can obtain an employment authorization document (EAD), may be granted travel authorization

Once TPS is granted, the individual also cannot be detained by DHS on the basis of his or her immigration status in the United States.

Our client first entered the United States in 1990 and has resided in the U.S. ever since. He had obtained TPS and work permits for a long time. He contacted our office in February 2012 for his TPS re-registration and work permit. He previously tried to re-register his TPS extension, but it was denied previously. He has not had a work permit for over 2 years. Our client retained us on February 23, 2012. On February 29, 2012, our office filed his TPS Application and Work Permit with a brief regarding his eligibility. We explained that our client has continued residence in the United States and continued physical presence since 1999. On May 15, 2012, the USCIS approved his TPS and issued a valid work permit for our client.

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 (EB-1C Category: Executives and Managers of Multinational Organizations)
EMPLOYER: Multinational Tire Corporation
BENEFICIARY: Korean
LOCATION: Akron, Ohio

Our client is a vice president of a multinational tire corporation in Ohio.  He is from Korea, and has worked for its parent company for 24 years in positions of increasing responsibility including that of team manager. He came to the United States in July 2011 with an E-2 visa to work for current petitioner company (wholly-owned subsidiary of his previous employer).  He contacted our firm in December 2011, and discussed us his chances of getting a green card.  Based on our client’s educational and professional background and his current position at the worksite, our office determined that he was clearly eligible for the EB-1C classification for his I-140 petition. Our client eventually retained us for his I-140 and subsequent I-485 adjustment of status application on December 15, 2011.

An employer can petition for its foreign employee under INA § 203(b)(1)(C) if it demonstrates the following: (C) Certain multinational executives and managers – An alien is described in this subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding the time of the alien’s application for classification and admission into the United States under this subparagraph, has been employed for at least 1 year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof and the alien seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render services to the same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial or executive.

According to the INA §101(a)(44), 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(44) and 8 C.F.R §204.5(j)(2), “executive capacity” means an assignment in an organization in which the employee primarily: (1) Directs the management of the organization or a component or function; (2) Establishes goals and policies; (3) Exercise wide latitude in discretionary decision making; and (4) Receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, board of directors or stockholders.

Also, above the mentioned statutes define “managerial capacity” as an assignment with the organization in which the employee personally: (1) Manages the organization, department, subdivision, function or component; (2) Supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional or managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the organization or department or subdivision of the organization; (3) Has authority to hire and fire or recommend personnel actions (if another directly supervises employees), or if no direct supervision, functions at a senior level; and (4) Exercises discretion over day-to-day operations of the activity or function.

After our office was retained, we prepared a thorough cover letter and obtained all necessary supporting documents from our client and the petitioning company. In our brief, we clearly demonstrated that our client met the requirements set forth in the INA §203(b)(1)(C).  First, the prospective U.S. employer (Petitioner-Company) has been doing business for at least 1 year.  Second, the prospective employer (Petitioner) in the United States is the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation or other legal entity by which the alien was employed abroad.  Third, if the worker is already employed in the United States, he or she was employed outside the United States for at least 1 year in the 3 years preceding admission as a non-immigrant in an executive or managerial capacity by the petitioner or by its parent branch, subsidiary, or affiliate. Last, the alien is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity.

In this case, the Petitioner-company has been doing business for 21 years in the United States. In addition, Petitioner-Company is the wholly-owned subsidiary of its Korean parent company where our client was employed for 24 years. Moreover, our client was employed outside the U.S. for at least 1 year in the 3 years preceding admission as a non-immigrant in an Executive or Managerial Capacity by the Petitioner’s parent company in South Korea.  Our client served as a team manager and later became general manager for the parent company.  He personally supervised and controlled the work of other researchers and engineers for new types and models of tire developments, and was primarily responsible for the company’s various new tires.  Lastly, our client is to be employed in the United States as a vice president / technical manager for the petitioner.

On the application package, we included a detailed job offer letter, employment verification letter from our client’s previous employer (parent company), an organization chart, and a dispatch order.  Also, we included evidence regarding the relationship between the Petitioner-Company and its Parent company in South Korea.  The evidence included a copy of the certificate of ownership, a copy of the articles of incorporation, a copy the business registration certificate, a copy of the approval for overseas investment, a copy of the annual report and consolidated financial statements.  The I-140 Petition was filed on March 15, 2012.  On June 1, 2012, the I-140 was approved with no Requests for Evidence.  Now, our client can file the I-485 adjustment of status application based on the approved I-140 petition.

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 employment-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: I-130/I-485
Issue: Visa Waiver Entry
Applicant/Beneficiary – Italian
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client entered the United States from Italy in January 2012 under the visa waiver program. As a Visa Waiver Entrant, she was only authorized to remain in the United States for 90 days. However, she has remained in the United States ever since.

Our client is a doctor, and she mentioned that she came on a J-1 visa before. So even though old visas and passports were not required, we asked her to show us those, together with her old DS-2019, so that we could check if she was subject to the 2-year foreign residency requirement. Our first inclination was that she was subject, as most J-1 entrants who are physicians are. When we saw the J-1 documents, we found out that she indeed was not subject. And so we proceeded with the adjustment of status case.

She married her U.S. Citizen spouse in September 2011 in Italy and her U.S. citizen husband filed an I-130 petition on October 4, 2011.  One main issue in her green card application through marriage was the fact that she came to the United States under the visa waiver program. As our office wrote in a 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-485 Adjustment of Status Application on March 5, 2012. Our office requested the CIS to exercise favorable discretion in granting adjustment of status despite her visa waiver entry.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and the work permit all came on time. There was no Request for Evidence. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients. On May 15, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS Field Office. We accompanied them at the interview as well. Despite the visa waiver entry and subsequent adjustment of status issue, the USCIS officer approved her green card application on the same day. Now, our client is a green card holder.

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 visa waiver 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: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status
CLIENT: From Madagascar
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in June 1998 with an F-1 student visa to study in the United States. She overstayed her F-1 status and remained in the United States. She married a U.S. Citizen in August 2008 and retained our office on September 14, 2011 for her adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on February 8, 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. On May 8, 2012, three months from filing the application, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu accompanied them at the interview as well.  On the same day, 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: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition
CLIENT: Ghanaian
LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio (EOIR) / Columbus, Ohio (USCIS)

Our client is a Ghanaian citizen who came to the U.S. on an F-1 Student Visa in August 2003 to study at a college in West Virginia.  He married his ex-wife, a U.S. Citizen, in 2007, but their marriage ended in 2011.  At the latter stage of his previous marriage, his ex-wife, a U.S. Citizen, filed an I-130 for him, but later withdrew the petition as their marriage did not work out well.  The I-130 petition was denied and after the denial, a Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceeding.

Our client got divorced to his first wife and then married his second U.S. Citizen wife in August 2011. He retained our office on August 29, 2011. Our office prepared and filed an I-130 Petition with bona fide marriage evidence of his two marriages on September 2, 2011. The petition also included a bona fide marriage exception letter. While the I-130 petition was pending, our client appeared at the Cleveland Immigration Court on October 19, 2011 for his initial master calendar hearing.  Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office represented him at the hearing, did pleadings and sought adjustment of status relief upon approval of the I-130 petition.

Our client’s I-130 interview was scheduled on March 26, 2012 at the Columbus USCIS Field Office.  Prior to the interview, our office thoroughly prepared our client and his wife for the interview. Attorney Yu also accompanied them at their interview. The interview lasted one hour, our clients were separated, but the I-130 petition was eventually approved on the same day.

After the I-130 was approved, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to Terminate proceedings with an attached I-485 application and its supporting documents. The DHS counsel in Cleveland agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice. He’s not in proceedings anymore. Now, he can file his I-485 adjustment of status application to the USCIS and eventually obtain 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. 

For other termination success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

{ 2 comments }