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

Our client contacted us in February 2011.  He came to the United States from the Philippines and obtained his green card in 2005.  He retained our office for his naturalization application.

The application was filed on February 24, 2011 with all necessary supporting documents.   Our office prepared him before his interview, and also accompanied him on May 2, 2011 at the Cleveland CIS office.  Our client answered all questions correctly and passed his citizenship interview.   Eventually, his N-400 was approved. His oath taking is scheduled for June 3, 2011 in which he will be 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. 

{ 0 comments }

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

Our client came to the United States in 2009 with an F-1 student visa from Kenya.  However, she later became out of status did not reinstate her F-1 status. She married a U.S. Citizen in August 2010 and retained our office in January of 2011 for her adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on January 24, 2010.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. There was no Request for Evidence.  Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients. On April 29, 2011, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS.  We accompanied them at the interview as well.  On May 5, 2011, our client obtained her 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. 

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization)
APPLICANT: German
LOCATION: Ohio
ISSUES: Out of Country Travels
?
Our client contacted us in September 2010 to inquire about applying for naturalization.  She came to the United States from Germany in the eighties, married her U.S. citizen spouse, and obtained her green card through this. Their marriage was bona fide at inception but it ended in 2009. But the divorce had no adverse effect on her naturalization because she has maintained the marital relationship more than 20 years. The main reason why she never applied for naturalization was because she had a lot of trips abroad, mainly due to her ex-husband’s work which had her travelling with him to Saudi Arabia. She had over 20 trips abroad since she obtained permanent residency.

Under immigration law, an applicant for naturalization must demonstrate continuous residence and physical presence in the United States.  The applicant must have been physically present in the United States for at least one-half of the past five years. Also, the applicant must not be out of the United States for a continuous period of more than one year during the period for which continuous residence is required. Please note that for both continuous residence and physical presence, the requirements are cumulative and not continuous.  A permanent resident can leave and come back to the United States as much as she or he wants as long as the continuity of residence is not broken and the physical presence requirement is met prior to applying for citizenship.

For the past 5 years, our client had four trips abroad.  Nonetheless, she was in the United States more than 2.5 years was thus eligible to file for naturalization.  The application was filed on November 18, 2010 with supporting documents.  We also accompanied her on February 18, 2011 at the Cleveland CIS office.  Our client promptly and clearly answered all questions by the CIS officer and passed her citizenship interview.  However, the officer asked the applicant to submit a notarized affidavit regarding her past travel history, even though a copy of her passport and a listing of her trips were provided in the application. We went back to the office on the same day to comply with this request by the CIS and immediately sent back the notarized affidavit of her trips. On April 19, 2011 her N-400 was finally approved. Her oath taking is scheduled for May 6, 2011 in which she will be 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. 

{ 0 comments }

Case: I-130/I-485
Potential Issue: Visa Waiver Entry – Overstay / Response to Notice of Intent to Deny
Applicant/Beneficiary – Spanish
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client entered the United States on April 11, 2010 from Spain under the visa waiver program.  When he entered the United States, he did not have any intention to get married.  In fact, he came to the United States to obtain a divorce from his former wife who was residing in the United States, and wished to come back home soon after.  As a Visa Waiver Entrant, he was only authorized to remain in the United States until July 10, 2010.

After he got divorced from his former wife in the United States, our client married his U.S. citizen spouse on June 2, 2010. 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.

Since our client resided in Cleveland, Ohio, his application had a better chance compared to states under the 9th Circuit (see Momeni v. Chertoff).  However, it was quite foreseeable that the USCIS field office will question the validity of the marriage between our client and his wife because of the existing language barrier between the couple. The US Citizen spouse speaks really little Spanish while the Spanish beneficiary speaks little English.

Our office filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on September 3, 2010.  Our office requested  the CIS to exercise favorable discretion in granting adjustment of status despite the filing date falling beyond the expiration of the visa waiver. We also argued that the marriage occurred prior to the expiration of the visa waiver status and that extraneous circumstances caused the delay in the filing of the applications.

Prior to the interview, Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office thoroughly prepared our client for their USCIS adjustment of status interview.  On December 20, 2010, Attorney Yu accompanied our client and his wife at the Cleveland USCIS office for his adjustment interview.  The interview took two and a half hours and the officer thoroughly asked our client and his wife about the bona fide nature of the marriage and the language barrier issue.

On March 9, 2011, the USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID).  The NOID claimed that there was substantial and probative evidence that the marital union between the Petitioner and Beneficiary is not bona fide.  As expected, the language barrier issue between our client and his wife was critical. They also pointed out the short time difference between the beneficiary’s divorce and subsequent marriage.

In response to the USCIS’s NOID, our office re-interviewed both the Petitioner and the Beneficiary, addressing the issues pointed out in the NOID and drafting an extensive affidavit. Multiple supporting documents  and a six-page affidavit from our client were all included as well as letters from the U.S Citizen wife’s family members, joint bank statements, joint lease, utility bills, and several pictures of our client and his wife in several occasions with different people.  Several legal authorities were cited based on particular issues discussed, and on March 31, 2011, we filed the Response to NOID prior to the 30-day deadline.

On April 5, 2011, less than a week from our Response, the USCIS approved our client’s case. We overcame both the visa waiver overstay and the bona fide marriage issues and as a result, both the I-130 Petition and I-485 Green Card Application were approved. Our client is now a green card holder.

For more success stories, please click here. Also feel free to contact our office for a free consultation.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Our client retained us to petition his parents in China. He was born and raised in China, but was recently naturalized in the United States. He consulted about the timeline and process of bringing his parents over here, and we explained that these types of cases are faster than sibling petitions or those where a parent petitions a son or daughter over 21.

A petition such as the above-mentioned is an example of an immediate relative petition. The main benefit of immediate relative petitions is that visa numbers are always available and not subject to a quota. You don’t have to check the visa bulletin every month to see if the U.S. Consul or the CIS can now process your case. It is already in process. The types of immediate relative petitions are as follows:

• US Citizen spousal petition
• US Citizen parent petitioning a child under 21
• US Citizen son or daughter petitioning a parent (such as this case)

On November 17, 2010, our firm filed the I-130 Petition to the CIS. There were no Requests for Evidence throughout the pendency of the petition. On April 1, 2011, the I-130 Petition was approved. We now move to the immigrant visa processing phase of trying to get his parents over to the United States.

Please click here for more success stories. If you have any questions, we invite you to contact us for a free consultation.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Issue: Arriving Alien / Adjustment of Status
Nationality: Chinese
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client came to the United States in 2000 without any immigration document (such as a passport and / or visa) from China.  Once he arrived at the Miami International Airport, he was inspected by the DHS officer and was paroled into the United States.  He applied for asylum, but was later denied by the Immigration Judge in New York in 2002. Thus, he had a final order of removal.

According to 8 C.F.R 1.1, the term arriving alien means “an applicant for admission coming or attempting to come into the United States at a port-of-entry, or an alien seeking transit through the United States at a port-of-entry, or an alien interdicted in international or United States waters and brought into the United States by any means, whether or not to a designated port-of-entry. An arriving alien remains an arriving alien even if paroled pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act, and even after any such parole is terminated or revoked.”

Despite his final order of removal, our client remained in the United States for the next nine years and eventually married his U.S. citizen spouse. Our client and his wife consulted with our firm to see if there’s anything that could be done for them knowing that they already have a final order. We reviewed their file, learned that he was an arriving alien despite the final order, and thus advised them that we can apply for adjustment of status. They retained us in November, 2010.

An arriving alien can adjust his or her status even though he or she has a final order. On May 12, 2006, the Attorney General (through the Executive Office for Immigration Review [EOIR]) and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (through DHS) jointly issued an interim rule that repealed former 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.1(c)(8) and 1245.1(c)(8). These two former regulations barred all “arriving aliens” – including parolees – from adjusting to permanent resident status if they were in removal proceedings.  Additionally, the interim rule set forth new regulations governing the jurisdiction of both EOIR and USCIS over adjustment applications in general and the adjustment of status applications of “arriving aliens” in particular.

The January 12, 2007 USCIS memo states that the USCIS can adjudicate an adjustment of stauts application of a parolee with a final order under these interim regulations. Under the amended jurisdictional provisions of the interim regulations, USCIS has been given jurisdiction over the adjustment applications of all arriving aliens regardless of whether they are in removal proceedings, with a limited exception for certain advance parolees not relevant to this practice advisory. Specifically, the amended regulations grant USCIS “jurisdiction to adjudicate an application for adjustment of status filed by any alien, unless the immigration judge has jurisdiction to adjudicate the application under 8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1).” 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(1). The regulations strip an immigration judge of jurisdiction over the adjustment application of an “arriving alien” in proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1). Consequently, since the immigration judge does not have jurisdiction over such applications, USCIS does, in accord wit
h this regulation. See also 92 Fed. Reg. at 27587 (explaining that one purpose of the amendments to the regulations is to make clear that USCIS has jurisdiction over the adjustment applications of “arriving aliens” in proceedings).

Thus, our office thoroughly prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status application in accordance with the regulations.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint notices, and work authorization all came on time.  There was no request for additional evidences.

Prior to the interview, Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu with the help of Arty Wynieski from our office thoroughly prepared our client for their USCIS adjustment of status interview. The preparation lasted for several hours because of  the “arriving alien” issue and other possible concerns with regard to our client’s case.

On the interview day, Attorney Yu accompanied our client and his wife at the Cleveland USCIS office.  The interview went well, and our client eventually got his green card on March 28, 2010.  Despite having a final order since 2002, our client finally became a permanent resident of the United States.

For more success stories in the deportation and marriage areas of immigration, feel free to browse our website and for further questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office for a free consultation.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: I-130 Motion to Reopen Nunc Pro Tunc
CLIENT: Indian
LOCATION: Ohio

Our client is a naturalized U.S. citizen who resides in Ohio. In April 2001, our client filed an I-130 petition for his brother who is in India.  About a year later, our client received mail from the USCIS requesting him to submit his brother’s birth records.  Upon receipt of the letter, our client timely mailed the requested documents to the Nebraska Service Center.  However, he had not heard from the USCIS with regard to the status of the I-130 petition.

In November, 2003, our client contacted the CIS Nebraska Service Center to ask about the status of the I-130 petition.  In response to his request, USCIS informed him that his records were located at the Cleveland District Office.  Thereafter, he contacted the Cleveland District office.  However, he never got a response from the District office.  While disappointed, he kept sending letters to the CIS Nebraska Center to request the status of the I-130 petition.  Despite his efforts, he did not get any response from the USCIS.  Moreover, from the time he filed the I-130 in 2001 to 2006, he never moved to a different address.

On September 16, 2010, after following up again with the CIS Nebraska Service Center, Petitioner received an email and the Service informed him that the I-130 petition was administratively closed on September 22, 2005 and the petition was no longer pending. Our client became so disappointed and sought legal assistance to resolve this matter.  He retained our office on October 13, 2010 and Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu promptly prepared and filed a Motion to Reopen to the USCIS and asked the Service to exercise its discretion in re-opening nun pro tunc the case beyond the filing deadline since our client has never been served nor informed by the CIS with regard to the administrative closure of the I-130 petition.

Moreover, the Motion requested the CIS to summarily approve the I-130 petition for our client’s brother because our client and his brother have been waiting for the CIS decision for more than 9 years, and since he also responded to the purported Request for Evidence.  The Motion noted that it would be extremely unfortunate and unfair for our client and his brother if he has to re-file the I-130 petition again since the priority date will be moved and he would have to wait another ten years.

After we filed the Motion, his case was transferred to the Nebraska Service Center.  On March 1, 2011, the USCIS Nebraska Center informed us that the USCIS moved to reopen the matter, and also approved the I-130.  Our client’s 9-years pending I-130 petition finally got an approval, and once priority dates become current, his brother can file an Immigrant Visa in India, without having to re-file another I-130 and wait 10 more years.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

{ 4 comments }

CASE: N-400 (Citizenship / Naturalization)

APPLICANT: Jordanian

LOCATION: Ohio

ISSUES: Permanent Residency Based on Marriage

Our client contacted us in November 2010.  She came to the United States from Jordan and married her U.S. citizen spouse eight years ago and through this marriage, she was able to obtain a green card in the United States.  She retained our office to assist her citizenship application.

Their marriage was bona fide, but a major issue was the separation of the couple years after the marriage. Although their marriage was not terminated, they physically reside in different places.  Our client was concerned about this issue because it might create an adverse effect on her naturalization application. After our initial consultation with the client, our office advised her that this issue will not be problematic since her marriage was bona fide at the inception of the marriage.  Moreover, she successfully removed the condition after two years of her marriage. She was also not applying around three years from the time her permanent residency was issued (in which case she still should be living with her US Citizen spouse), she was applying three months prior to the five-year anniversary of her permanent residency issuance (thus no need for her to be living with her husband for naturalization purposes).Therefore, it should not be a problematic issue.

The application was filed on November 23, 2010 with supporting documents. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu of our office prepared her before the interview, and was also accompanied by him on February 1, 2011 at the Cleveland CIS office.  Our client answered all questions correctly and passed her citizenship interview.  On February 7, 2011 her N-400 was approved. Her oath taking is scheduled for February 18, 2011 in which she will be 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. 

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: J-1 Waiver of Two-Year Foreign Residency Requirement, No Objection Statement

NATIONALITY:Korean

LOCATION: Ohio

Our client is from South Korea who came to the U.S. on a J-1 Visa six years ago.  She came to the U.S. to work at her internship program. Before her J-1 visa was expired, she managed to get an F-1 visa and continuously pursued her studies in Ohio.  According to her DS-2019, she was subject to the two-year foreign residency requirement, meaning you would have to go back to your home country for two-years before you can apply for permanent residency and some non-immigrant visas.

Last year, she got married to her U.S. citizen husband and later on consulted with our firm for her adjustment of status (obtaining a green card). Her situation was unique because her passport’s visa page states that she is not subject to the two-year foreign residency requirement.  However, her DS-2019 was clearly marked with the two-year foreign residency requirement.

To clarify the uncertainty, our office checked with the State Department by filing an advisory opinion request.  According to the Department of State, “if you are not sure whether the two year foreign residence applies to you, you may make a written request for an advisory opinion for the applicability of the residence requirement to your situation.”  Our office promptly filed this advisory opinion request on July 27, 2010 to the Waiver Review Division of the Department of State.

Unfortunately, the decision of the Department of State stated that our client is subject to the two-year foreign residency requirement. After our office received this decision from the Department of State, our office promptly prepared for filing a waiver request through a No Objection Statement (NOS) from the Korean Embassy in the United States.

As mentioned in a previous blog article, every country’s Embassy maintains different procedures and policies with regard to the J-1 No Objection Statement waiver.  Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office promptly contacted the Korean Consulate General Office in Chicago to pursue the waiver for our client.  The Consulate office requested six different documents including a statement of reason for the waiver, the applicant’s resume, a J-1 visa waiver confirmation application, and a letter of reason for obtaining J-1 waiver.  Most of those documents needed to be written in Korean, so Attorney Yu, a Korean himself, assisted our client in completing those documents.

On November 24, 2010 the J-1 Waiver was filed to the Department of State.  We also sent a request to the Korean Embassy to issue a No Objection Statement and recommend this waiver based on the fact that our client is eligible to adjust if she obtains the waiver.

The Korean Consulate General in Chicago promptly forwarded our client’s documents to the Korean Embassy in DC.  On January 18, 2011, the Korean Embassy issued a No Objection Statement for our client, and sent this letter to the State Department’s Waiver Review Division.  On January 28, 2011, the Waiver Review Division issued a favorable recommendation based on the No Objection statement. The CIS has receipted the fee and will issue an I-612 approval shortly. Now, our client can file her adjustment of status application along with her husband’s I-130 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. 

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: H-1B Visa Petition

PETITIONER: IT Consulting Company

BENEFICIARY: Mexican

LOCATION: Ohio

ISSUE: Third-Party Placement / Consulting Company Issue

Our client is an IT consulting company in Ohio. The beneficiary is a Mexican who obtained a Bachelor of Engineering degree.  The proffered position for the Beneficiary was a computer systems analyst which qualifies as a specialty occupation.  Previously, the petitioner filed an H-1B visa petition on behalf of the beneficiary, but it was denied by the USCIS due to third-party placement issue.

Thereafter, our office promptly filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on November 10, 2010 via premium processing service. On November 24, 2010, the USCIS requested the petitioner to submit additional evidence to rebut the third-party placement issue.  This issue of “in-house” employment was the main reason why the beneficiary’s previous H-1B visa petition was denied. This issue has been prevalent since a memorandum was issued over a year ago targeting IT and Business Consulting companies, as they typically act as a bridge to eventually place their employees under the control of their clients – a third party.

Upon our receipt of the RFE from the USCIS, Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu prepared a detailed response with several exhibits as a response to the RFE.  The exhibits included information regarding the Petitioner-Employer, a detailed letter from Petitioner-Employer regarding the beneficiary’s In-House Employment, and various charts and spreadsheets detailing the particular in-house project of the position. In the cover letter to the USCIS, Attorney Yu explained the nature of the in-house employment setting between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary with a detailed explanation of specific projects that the beneficiary will work on at the Petitioner’s own site. Our firm also submitted various supporting documents to illustrate to the CIS the complexity of beneficiary’s project.

Our office filed the response to RFE with the USCIS California Service Center on December 21, 2010.  Our client’s H-1B application was approved on December 28, 2010.  It was approved within a week after the response to RFE was filed.  Now our client can work for his employer as an H-1B visa holder and he can work there. His wife’s I-539 H-4 application was also 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. 

{ Comments on this entry are closed }