CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Nigerian

LOCATION: Philadelphia, PA

Our client came to the United States from Nigeria on a B-2 Visitor’s visa in January 2010. After his authorization of stay period expired, he remained in the United States.  He married a U.S. Citizen in August 2017 and retained our office on August 8, 2017 for his green card application. Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on October 25, 2017.  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 via conference calls. On November 14, 2018, our client was interviewed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Eventually, on November 14, 2018, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751

APPLICANT: Nigerian

LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA

Our client contacted our office in May of 2017 regarding his I-751 application.

He is from Nigeria and he married a U.S. citizen. Through his marriage, he obtained a 2-year conditional green card in October of 2015. Thus, his conditional residency terminated in October 2017.

To comply with immigration requirements, our client and his wife had to file an I-751 Joint Petition to Remove Conditions. He retained our office on May 25, 2017, and our office prepared an I-751 application for our client with other supplemental exhibits.

On July 25, 2017, our office filed an I-751 application to the USCIS with multiple affidavits from his friends and family members, joint bank statements, utility bills, joint leasing documents, joint tax documents, and photos of our client and his wife to demonstrate the bona fideness of their marriage.

Once the application was filed, the fingerprint notice was issued two weeks later. Eventually, on October 26, 2018, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application without any Request for Evidence (RFE).

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Consular Processing (Immigrant Visa)

CLIENT: US Citizen Petitioner Wife; Pakistani Beneficiary Husband in Pakistan

LOCATION: Petitioner: Pennsylvania; Beneficiary: Islamabad, Pakistan

IV APPROVED: August 15, 2017.

Our U.S. Citizen client retained us to bring her husband over from Pakistan. She retained our office in January 2017, and our office prepared and filed the I-130 petition for her husband on March 16, 2017. This I-130 Petition was approved by the USCIS on August 15, 2017. Once the I-130 petition was approved, we then started the immigrant visa processing phase of trying to get her husband over to the United States.

On October 10, 2017, we filed the immigrant visa packets to the National Visa Center who in turn forwarded our client’s materials to the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan. An interview notice was set for our client’s husband at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, and we prepared him for his interview.  He did his interview on January 8, 2018. Eventually, on March 10, 2018, the U.S. Embassy approved and issued his immigrant visa.

With the approved immigrant visa, our client’s husband can come to the United States immediately, and he will get his green card within two months of entry.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-140 (EB-3 Category) / Schedule A / Request to retain earlier priority date

EMPLOYER: Physicians’ Office

BENEFICIARY: Chinese Nurse Practitioner

LOCATION: Pennsylvania

Our client is a certified nurse practitioner. Her prospective 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. With our office’s help, on July 25, 2017, without any Request for Evidence (RFE), the USCIS Nebraska Service Center approved her EB-2 I-140 petition.

However, since she is a Chinese national her priority date is later than the other Chinese nationals who have third-preference I-140 petition approval. Thus, our client would like to downgrade her approved EB-2 petition to the third preference so that she can file the adjustment of status application earlier. After the consolation with our office, she and her prospective employer decide to file the third I-140 petition while retain her old priority date.  

According to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(e):

A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b) (1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b) (1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b) (1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date. A petition revoked under sections 204(e) or 205 of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition. A priority date is not transferable to another alien.

Our client retained our office again on October 5, 2017. On October 13, 2017, our office filed the I-140 EB-3 petition for our client.  In the cover brief, we citied aforementioned statutory language, and explained that our client is eligible for retaining old priority date for this subsequent I-140 petition, requesting the Eb3 classification based on the same labor certification which was also filed by the same petitioner.  

However, on December 15, 2017, the USCIS issued the Request for Evidence (RFE) and requested the Petitioner’s most recent tax return document to determine its ability to pay. On January 26, 2018, our office filed the Response to Request for Evidence along with the Petitioner’s most recent tax return. Eventually, on February 12, 2018, the USCIS approved our client’s I-140 EB-3 petition with old priority date.

{ 0 comments }

CASE:  Adjustment of Status / Termination of Proceedings after Joint Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Pakistanis
LOCATION: Philadelphia, PA

Our clients are Pakistani citizens who currently reside in Philadelphia, PA with their U.S. Citizen sons.  Our client entered the United States with valid L-1 and L-2 visas in November 2000.  Later, they were granted withholding of removal in July 2006 by the Philadelphia Immigration Court.  They have remained in the United States thereafter. In November 2013, our clients’ son became a naturalized U.S. citizen. However, for them to get a green card, their case should first be reopened by the Immigration Court for them to apply for adjustment of status either with the Court, or with the CIS should proceedings be terminated after reopening.

In May 2015, our clients contacted our office and sought legal assistance for their immigration matter.  After thorough consultations, our client retained us on May 14, 2015.  Upon retention, we first prepared and filed their U.S. citizen son’s I-130 petitions for them. We filed the I-130 petitions to USCIS on May 20, 2015 and the USCIS approved the I-130s on October 5, 2015. Once the I-130s were approved, we filed Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen for our client to USICE-DHS office in Philadelphia.  Our cover brief explained how they got their withholding of removal status, approval of I-130, and their prima facie eligibility to apply for adjustment of status.

After the long reviewing period, the DHS office in Philadelphia finally agreed to join in Motion to Reopen and an assigned counsel signed on the Motion on April 11, 2016.  Once we received the Joint Motion to Reopen, we filed a Motion to Philadelphia Immigration Court to request reopening of our clients’ cases so that they can apply for adjustment of status. Eventually, on April 28, 2016, the Philadelphia Immigration Court terminated our clients’ removal proceedings.

Once their cases were terminated they retained our office again for their I-485 adjustment of status applications. Our firm prepared and filed the Adjustment of Status Applications and the Employment Authorization Document on June 23, 2016.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time.

Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our client via conference call. On July 25, 2017, our clients were interviewed at the Philadelphia Pennsylvania USCIS.  The interview went well, and on July 31, 2017, their green card applications were approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

NATIONALITY: Indian                                                                                                        

LOCATION: Philadelphia, PA

Our client is from India who came to the U.S. on an F-1 student visa to pursue his undergraduate degree. In January 2017, our client married his current U.S. citizen wife.  He retained our office in February 2017 for his green card application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on February 13, 2017. 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 via conference calls. On July 19, 2017, our client was interviewed at the Philadelphia Pennsylvania USCIS office. Eventually, on July 21, 2017, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: H-1B1 Extension

PETITIONER: Education Consulting Organization

BENEFICIARY: Singaporean Market Research Analyst

LOCATION: Pennsylvania

Our client is an education consulting organization located in Western Pennsylvania. They contacted our office in January 2017 to seek assistance from our office for their foreign employee’s H-1B1 extension. The beneficiary is from Singapore and she has bachelor’s degree. The beneficiary has more than 10 years professional work experience in the field of management and marketing. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is a Market Research Analyst which we argued qualified as a specialty occupation. Since she is the Singaporean National, she was eligible to get H-1B1 status in 2016.

After retention, our office promptly filed the H-1B1 visa petition with various supporting documents on February 20, 2017 via regular processing. We also gathered supporting documents from both the Petitioner and Beneficiary and did research on the industry, focusing on similarly sized businesses, to demonstrate that a bachelor’s degree is commonly required for this position.

Moreover, in our brief, our office argued that the degree requirement is common to this industry in parallel positions among similar organizations.  Also, we provided evidence that Petitioner’s competitors normally require degrees in a specific specialty for closely related positions like that of Market Research Analyst.  Moreover, our office asserted that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty.

Eventually, our client’s H-1B1 application was approved by the USCIS Nebraska Service Center on June 15, 2017. She can work for her employer until March 2018.  

{ 0 comments }

Case: I-130/I-485, BIA Appeal

Client: China

Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Our client entered the United States in May 2012 from China with a B-2 visitor visa.  Later, he married his U.S. citizen wife in September 2012. He retained our office on September 12, 2012 for his and his sons’ (petitioner’s two step-sons) adjustment of status applications.

Our office prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Applications on October 9, 2012.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. Prior to the interview, our attorney thoroughly prepared our client via conference calls for their USCIS adjustment of status interview.

On December 19, 2012, our client, his two sons, and his U.S. citizen wife appeared at the Pittsburgh, PA USCIS office for their adjustment interview. The interview was extensive, and the officer was suspicious regarding the bona fideness of our client’s marriage.

On January 14, 2014, 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.  Moreover, the NOID points out that the submitted documentation of Petitioner and Beneficiary does not establish a bona fide nature of their marriage.

In response to the USCIS’s NOID, our office helped our clients draft an extensive affidavit. Multiple supporting documents and an affidavit from our client were all included as well as letters from their friends and neighbors, joint utility bills, joint insurance, 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 February 10, 2014, we filed the Response to NOID prior to the 30-day deadline.

However, the USCIS denied our client’s adjustment of status cases in April 2014. Our clients were frustrated. Their marriage was bona fide. Nevertheless, they decided to re-file their adjustment of status applications. Our office filed the applications again on May 13, 2014.

The USCIS scheduled another interview for our clients. On October 29, 2014, our client, his two sons, and his U.S. citizen wife appeared at the Pittsburgh, PA USCIS office for their adjustment interview again. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our clients as well. The USCIS claimed that the relationship between our client and his U.S. citizen wife is not bona fide and was suspicious regarding the purpose of this marriage. The NOID was issued again after the interview, and despite our extensive response, the USCIS denied our clients’ cases again.

After two denials, our client decided to file the appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Our office was retained again, and we filed the appeal to the BIA on March 24, 2015. In our appeal brief, we extensively argued that our client’s marriage to his wife was not entered for immigration purpose. We included several documentations to show that they have maintained their marital life well since the inception of their marriage.

Moreover, our office also filed the I-130/I-485 applications once again on January 8, 2016 before we filed the BIA appeal.

On April 12, 2016, the BIA sustained our appeal and approved the I-130 petition for our client. The BIA disagreed with the USCIS that “the evidence of the record reflects that the Petitioner did not establish that the marriage on which the visa petition is based is genuine. Rather, on the whole, the record contains sufficient evidence of a joint life, and, in general, discrepancies and inconsistencies were satisfactorily explained.”

Eventually, on August 25, 2016, the USCIS approved our client’s I-485 adjustment of status application without the additional interview. The USCIS also approved our client’s two sons’ adjustment of status applications. Now they are green card holders.

{ 0 comments }

CASE:  Termination of Proceedings after Joint Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Pakistanis
LOCATION: Philadelphia, PA

Our clients are Pakistani citizens who currently reside in Philadelphia, PA. They were on Withholding of Removal status. Their U.S. Citizen sons were US Citizens. Our client entered to the United States on a valid L-1 and L-2 visa in November 2000.  Later, they were granted withholding of removal in July 2006 by the Philadelphia Immigration Court.

In November 2013, our clients’ son became a naturalized U.S. citizen. However, for them to get a green card, their case should first be reopened in the Immigration Court for them to apply for adjustment of status either with the Court, or with the CIS should proceedings be terminated after reopening.

In May 2015, our clients contacted our office and sought legal assistance for their immigration matter. Our client retained us on May 14, 2015.  Upon retention, we first prepared and filed their U.S. citizen son’s I-130 petitions for them. We filed the I-130 petitions to the USCIS on May 20, 2015 and the USCIS approved the I-130s on October 5, 2015. Once the I-130s were approved, we filed a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen for our client to USICE-DHS office in Philadelphia.  Our cover brief explained how they got their withholding of removal status, approval of I-130, and their prima facie eligibility to apply for adjustment of status.

After the long review period, the DHS office in Philadelphia finally agreed to join in our Motion to Reopen and an assigned counsel signed on the Motion on April 11, 2016.  Once we received the Joint Motion to Reopen, we filed a Motion to the Philadelphia Immigration Court to request reopening of our clients’ cases so that they can apply for adjustment of status. Eventually, on April 28, 2016, the Philadelphia Immigration Court terminated our clients’ removal proceedings. Now, with the termination order and approved I-130 by their U.S. citizen son, our client can file the adjustment of status applications to the USCIS.

{ 0 comments }

CASE:  Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen and Terminate Proceedings
CLIENT: Pakistanis
LOCATION: Philadelphia, PA

Our clients are a Pakistani couple who currently reside in Philadelphia, PA. They were granted withholding of removal years ago.  Our client entered the United States on a valid L-1 and L-2 visa in November 2000.  Later, they were granted withholding of removal in July 2006 by the Philadelphia Immigration Court.  They have remained in the United States thereafter.

In November 2013, our clients’ son became a naturalized U.S. citizen. However, for them to get a green card, their case should first be reopened in the Immigration Court for them to apply for adjustment of status either with the Court, or with the CIS should proceedings be terminated after reopening.

In May 2015, our clients contacted our office and sought legal assistance for their immigration matter. After consultation, our client retained us on May 14, 2015.  Upon retention, we first prepared and filed their U.S. citizen son’s I-130 petitions for them. We filed the I-130 petitions to the USCIS on May 20, 2015 and the USCIS approved the I-130s on October 5, 2015. Once the I-130s were approved, we filed a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen for our client to USICE-DHS office in Philadelphia.  Our cover brief explained how they got their withholding of removal status, approved of I-130, and their prima facie eligibility to apply for adjustment of status.

On April 11, 2016, the DHS office in Philadelphia agreed to join in the Motion to Reopen and Terminate Proceedings. The Joint Motion was then filed to the Philadelphia Immigration Court and upon reopening and termination, their adjustment of status applications can then be filed to the USCIS.

{ 0 comments }