CASE: Adjustment of Status / 245(i)

CLIENT: Filipina

LOCATION: Anchorage, Alaska

Our Filipina client came to the U.S. as a crewman in 2002. Her last entry to the United States on a crewman’s landing permit was in November 2002. She has remained in the United States, and she currently resides in Alaska.

Our client contacted us around June of 2014 for consultation and sought legal assistance for her adjustment of status. After consultation, we determined that she is eligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(i) with the approved I-130 petition which was filed by her current U.S. citizen husband. Our client retained us on June 25, 2014.

Prior to retaining our firm, our client was a derivative beneficiary of an I-140 petition for her mother. When the I-140 was filed, our client was only 13 years old which made her a derivative beneficiary. Accordingly, she could be a beneficiary under the INA Section 245(i).

Section 245(i) of the INA allows certain foreign nationals to become permanent residents of the United States despite entering without inspection (EWI), overstaying, and entering on a C1/D crewman / seaman among others. 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 or if they entered on a C1/D (crewman / seaman), 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 and made amendments. Immigrants and their families who had already begun 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.

On July 11, 2014, our office filed her I-485 adjustment of status applications under the 245(i) category for our client with the approved I-130 petition.  However, the USCIS denied our client’s application on August 15, 2014 and claimed that our client was restricted from adjustment of status by virtue of INA Section 245(a) and (c). They were wrong and the denial notice did not mention the fact that our client was ineligible for 245(i). Our client was eligible.

Our office immediately filed a Motion to Reopen (Form I-290B) on August 26, 2014 to the USCIS. In our brief in support, our office argued that our client is the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition filed before January 14, 1998, by virtue of the I-140 filed for her mother in 1989 including her as a derivative when she was only 13 years old. The Bach memorandum specifies that even if she is aged out, our client is still considered a beneficiary for purposes of adjudication under INA section 245(i). We also argued that since the petition was filed before January 14, 1998 that our client does not need to prove physical presence in the United States on December 21, 2000.  Eventually, the USCIS approved our client’s I-485 adjustment of status application on December 3, 2014. After a long wait, our client is finally a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

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

CLIENT: US Citizen Petitioner; Filipino Beneficiary in the Philippines

LOCATION: Petitioner: Cleveland OH; Beneficiary: Manila, Philippines

Our client is a U.S. citizen who married his Filipina girlfriend in the Philippines in 2013.  He had his marriage ceremony with his wife in the Philippines in June 2013.  When he came back to the United States, he wanted to bring his wife over here.

He contacted our office in late November 2013 and retained our office to help bring his wife to the States. Since the client’s wife was not in the United States, and their marriage occurred in the Philippines, our office filed an I-130 first on December 17, 2013.

After the I-130 was filed, everything went smoothly and the receipt notices came on time. The I-130 Petition was approved by the USCIS on February 13, 2014.

After the I-130 approval, we filed the immigrant visa packets to the National Visa Center on August 22, 2014, who in turn forwarded the client’s materials to the U.S. Embassy in Manila, Philippines. An interview notice was set for the client at the U.S. Embassy in Manila. On December 4, 2014, our client’s wife appeared at the U.S. Embassy in Manila, The interview went well, and on the same day, the U.S. Embassy in Manila, Philippines approved and issued her immigrant visa.

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

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Filipino

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our Filipino client came to the United States on an E-2 investment visa in November 2010. Later, he married a U.S. Citizen in July 2013. His U.S. citizen wife filed an I-130 petition and our client filed adjustment of status application in 2013, but his applications were denied due to an issue regarding the petitioner’s previous divorce decree.

Our client retained our office on February 14, 2014 for the re-filing of his petition and adjustment of status application. We made sure we obtained the proper divorce decree from Hawaii.

Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on February 21, 2014.  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 June 16, 2014, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, OH USCIS office.  Attorney JP Sarmiento from our office also accompanied our client as well. The interview was took time, but our clients answered the questions well and demonstrated the bona fide nature of their marital life. Eventually, on November 19, 2014, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Petition and Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Filipino

LOCATION: Houston, TX

Our Filipino client came to the United States on a H-4 visa in May 2004. Later, he changed his status to H-1B. He married his U.S. citizen wife in September 2013 when his spouse was a Lawful Permanent Resident. She became a naturalized U.S. Citizen in June 2014. Once she was naturalized, our client retained our office on August 4, 2014 for his adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on August 22, 2014.  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 12, 2014, our client was interviewed at the Houston, TX USCIS. On the same day, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-140 (EB-2 Category) / Schedule A / Premium Processing

EMPLOYER: Nursing Care Facility

BENEFICIARY: Filipina

LOCATION: Houston, TX

Our client is from the Philippines. Her prospective employer-sponsor is willing to petition her for a second-preference employment immigrant visa petition (I-140). Since she has a registered nurse license and the proffered position for her is a health services manager (nurse manager) at the nursing care facility, the petition wanted to try going for a “Schedule A” classification. They also wanted to do EB2 (requiring at least a Masters degree or Bachelors degree + 5 yrs experience).

The Department of Labor (DOL) maintains a schedule of occupations in its regulations, Schedule A included, for which the individual permanent labor certification procedure is not required. The schedule of pre-certified occupations is referred to as Schedule A, and is included in DOL regulations at 20 CFR 656.10. Based on an occupation’s inclusion on Schedule A, an employer may file an immigrant visa petition (I-140) directly with the (USCIS) without having to file a Labor Certification with the Department of Labor. Usually, prior to filing I-140 petitions (EB-2 or EB-3 category), the employer must file a Labor Certification to the Department of Labor. However, for Schedule A cases, the employer does not have to go through the labor certification process. We argued that the position of Health Services Manager should be classified under Schedule A. We argued that it falls under the broad spectrum of “professional nurse” occupations. We also argued that the job description has excerpts that fall under “professional nurse” and that the description justifies the requirements also of Bachelor’s degree in nursing and five years of related experiences.

Our client has a Bachelor’s degree in nursing and has more than five years total experience as a clinical director and as midwife. She also has a registered nursing license in the state of Texas. Our office was retained and we started on the Prevailing Wage Determination filing and other related matters.

Once the prevailing wage was determined, we filed the I-140 application on September 5, 2014 via premium processing. We included a job offer letter, the notice of filing, employment letter, and other necessary supporting documents. In our cover brief, we included the “ability to pay” argument and why the health services manager position falls under a Schedule A and EB2 designation.

However, on September 19, 2014, the USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny. The USCIS argued that they cannot approve her I-140 petition because the proffered position, Health Services Manager, does not fall under Schedule A designation and it is not an EB-2 classified position.

We prepared an extensive response. In our response brief, we cited an AAO decision and argued that positions other than “registered nurses” can fall under the definition of professional nurses, and thus fall under the Schedule A designation as well. The position of Health Services Manager for Petitioner, considering its job description, is a “position other than registered nurses that still falls within the definition of a professional nurse.” As to the EB-2 classification argument, our office argued that the proffered position has a supervisory role and the complexity of job duties justify the EB-2 designation and the required 5 years experiences under the ONET Job Zone and the Department of Labor’s level. With this detailed response brief and other supporting documents, our office filed a Response to Notice of Intent to Deny to USCIS Texas Service Center on October 8, 2014.

Eventually, on October 22, 2014, the USCIS Texas Service Center approved her EB-2 I-140 petition. Now, with the approved EB-2 I-140 petition (priority date for EB2 Philippines nationals is current), she can file her adjustment of status application at any time (she could have filed it simultaneous to the I-140, we just want to make sure the I-140 was approved first).

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-140 (EB-3 Category) / Schedule A / Old Priority Date Retention

EMPLOYER: Nursing / Rehabilitation Center

BENEFICIARY: Filipino Registered Nurse in Bangkok, Thailand

LOCATION: Houston, TX

Our client’s beneficiary is a registered nurse from the Philippines licensed in the state of Texas. Currently, he is working at a hospital in Bangkok, Thailand as a nurse. His prospective employer was willing to petition him for a third-preference employment immigrant visa petition (I-140). Our client also has an approved EB-3 I-140 petition with a priority date of January 2009.

Since he is a registered nurse, he is eligible for “Schedule A” classification. The Department of Labor (DOL) maintains a schedule of occupations in its regulations, Schedule A included, for which the individual permanent labor certification procedure is not required. The schedule of pre-certified occupations is referred to as Schedule A, and is included in DOL regulations at 20 CFR 656.10. Based on an occupation’s inclusion on Schedule A, an employer may file an immigrant visa petition (I-140) directly with the (USCIS) without first going to the DOL for a labor certification. Usually, prior to filing I-140 petitions (EB-2 or EB-3 category), the employer must file a Labor Certification to the Department of Labor. However, for Schedule A cases, the employer does not have to go through the labor certification process. The position of Professional Nurses is included in Schedule A.

Also, under 8 CFR 204.5(e):

“Retention of section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) priority date. 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.”

As mentioned above, our client’s approved I-140 petition was not denied, was actually approved, and was never revoked at any point. Thus, by virtue of 8 CFR 204.5(e), this succeeding I-140 Petition by our client’s prospective employer for our client is entitled to the previous priority date.

Our client has a nursing degree and has several years of related experience. Our firm told him that his potential employer can petition him as a Registered Nurse under the schedule A category. More importantly, since the priority date of his previous I-140 was current, he can eventually apply for his immigrant visa via consular processing. Our office was retained on July 27, 2014 and we started on his Prevailing Wage Request.

We filed the I-140 application on October 2, 2014 via premium processing. We included the job offer letter, the notice of filing, his previous I-140 approval notice, and other necessary supporting documents.  Eventually, on October 16, 2014, the I-140 was approved and it retained our client’s old priority date.  Now, our client can eventually file his immigrant visa application.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Motion to Reopen (I-290B) / H-1B Visa Petition

PETITIONER: Healthcare Staffing Company

BENEFICIARY: Filipino Pharmacist Intern

Our client is one of the leading healthcare staffing firms in Northeast Ohio, serving the general staffing needs of regional hospitals and clinics. They contacted our office in early March to seek legal assistance from our office for their foreign employee.

The beneficiary is a licensed pharmacist in the Philippines who obtained his Doctor of Pharmacy degree in the Philippines. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is a Pharmacist Intern because he does not have any U.S. Pharmacist license. Still, we showed that this is a “specialty occupation” because the minimum requirement for this position is a Doctor of Pharmacy Degree.

When our client contacted us, the numerical cap of H-1B visas for fiscal year 2014 was not available. Also, since the Petitioner is a staffing firm, their foreign employee will be placed at different hospitals (off-site employment issue).

We told our client that we can argue that they are qualified for some of the exemption provisions for the H-1B cap. We explained that we can argue the nonprofit exemption, as well as cite some CIS memorandums regarding eligibility for H-1B petitions despite off-site employment.

We showed that the main reason for cap-exemption is that the foreign employee will be placed at two hospitals which are non-profit research organizations as defined in 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(19)(iii)(C).

Our office argued that this H-1B petition is exempted from the H-1B numerical limitations (cap-exempt) because the Petitioner will employ the beneficiary to perform job duties at non-profit research organizations (two hospitals) as defined in 8 C.F.R. 214(h)(19)(iii)(C) that directly and predominately furthers the normal, primary, or essential purpose, mission, objectives, or function of the qualifying institution (nonprofit research).

We also argued that these two hospitals are clearly qualified as non-profit research organizations as defined in 8 C.F.R. 214(h)(19)(iii)(C). These two organizations are primarily engaged in basic research and/or applied research. Moreover, the beneficiary’s job duties, which will be performed on-site at qualifying non-profit research organizations, will be similar to those performed by actual employees (Pharmacist Interns) of the two hospitals in the furtherance of the qualifying entities’ mission.

Furthermore, we explained that the Petitioner will comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements of the H-1B non-immigrant classification for the placement of the beneficiary at the two hospitals during the period of employment.  We mentioned that the beneficiary will be paid higher than the prevailing wage for the pharmacist position by the Petitioner, and Petitioner-Employer will maintain an employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary. The Petitioner has the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis as well. We explained that the Petitioner has a sole right to hire, pay, and has the ability to fire the beneficiary as well.

Once retained, our office filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on May 7, 2013 via premium processing.

However, the USCIS California Service Center issued Requests for Evidence (RFE) on May 22, 2014 and requested Petitioner to demonstrate that the prospective places of employment for Beneficiary are truly non-profit organizations under the definition of cap-exempt purposes. Also, the USCIS requested additional information regarding the qualifications of Beneficiary for the proffered position.

The USCIS requested the Petitioner to submit evidence regarding his lack of license – in particular, further proof that he could not get a license in Ohio due to what we claimed on the initial application as a lack of social security / status.

Once we received the RFE request, our office prepared the response for the RFE and argued that the prospective places of employment for Beneficiary are non-profit medical research organizations and Beneficiary’s work will be similar to Pharmacist Interns in those hospitals.

We submitted the name, address, and contact information of supervisors of each Pharmacy where Beneficiary will be placed.  We also included why he could not take the Board exam (since he does not have a social security number) and did not get a license.We filed this Response to the RFE on May 29, 2014.

Unfortunately, the USCIS denied this case in June 2014. They agreed with our position on the “cap-exempt” issues, however, they did not accept the Ohio Pharmacy Board requirements proof that we submitted showing that they needed a social security number, and that our client did not have one. They instead wanted a deficiency letter.

So our client applied for a license with knowledge that they won’t give it to him, just so that the CIS will be satisfied with the evidence. He indeed got a deficiency letter from Ohio, which we submitted in a Motion to Reopen.

We also argued in light of the Donald Neufeld March 21, 2008 Memorandum. According to the memo and adjudicator’s Field Manual Section 31.3(d), “adjudicators are instructed to approve the petition for a one-year validity period, provided that the sole reason why the alien beneficiary does not possess such license is that the appropriate licensing authority will not grant such license to an alien absent evidence that the alien has been granted H-1B status.” We argued that beneficiary’s status would allow him to obtain a social security number which will lead him to get his license.

Our office filed a Form I-290B (Motion to Reopen) and a detailed brief with exhibits to the USCIS California Service Center on July 9, 2014.  Eventually, our client’s Motion to Reopen was granted by the USCIS on September 15, 2014. Subsequently, his H-1B application was approved on October 1, 2014. Now, the beneficiary can work for the Petitioner from October 1, 2014 for one year.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-140 (EB-3 Category) / Schedule A / Old Priority Date Retention

EMPLOYER: Nursing / Rehabilitation Center

BENEFICIARY: Filipino Registered Nurse in Bangkok, Thailand

LOCATION: Houston, TX

Our client’s beneficiary is a registered nurse from the Philippines licensed in the state of Texas. Currently, he is working at a hospital in Bangkok, Thailand as a nurse. His prospective employer was willing to petition him for a third-preference employment immigrant visa petition (I-140). Our client also has an approved EB-3 I-140 petition with a priority date of January 2009.

Since he is a registered nurse, he is eligible for “Schedule A” classification. The Department of Labor (DOL) maintains a schedule of occupations in its regulations, Schedule A included, for which the individual permanent labor certification procedure is not required. The schedule of pre-certified occupations is referred to as Schedule A, and is included in DOL regulations at 20 CFR 656.10. Based on an occupation’s inclusion on Schedule A, an employer may file an immigrant visa petition (I-140) directly with the (USCIS) without first going to the DOL for a labor certification. Usually, prior to filing I-140 petitions (EB-2 or EB-3 category), the employer must file a Labor Certification to the Department of Labor. However, for Schedule A cases, the employer does not have to go through the labor certification process. The position of Professional Nurses is included in Schedule A.

Also, under 8 CFR 204.5(e):

“Retention of section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) priority date. 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.”

As mentioned above, our client’s approved I-140 petition was not denied, was actually approved, and was never revoked at any point. Thus, by virtue of 8 CFR 204.5(e), this succeeding I-140 Petition by our client’s prospective employer for our client is entitled to the previous priority date.

Our client has a nursing degree and has several years of related experience. Our firm told him that his potential employer can petition him as a Registered Nurse under the schedule A category. More importantly, since the priority date of his previous I-140 was current, he can eventually apply for his immigrant visa via consular processing. Our office was retained on July 27, 2014 and we started on his Prevailing Wage Request.

We filed the I-140 application on October 2, 2014 via premium processing. We included the job offer letter, the notice of filing, his previous I-140 approval notice, and other necessary supporting documents.  Eventually, on October 8, 2014, the I-140 was approved and it retained our client’s old priority date.  Now, our client can eventually file his immigrant visa application.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-140 (EB-2 Category) / Schedule A / Premium Processing

EMPLOYER: Nursing Care Facility

BENEFICIARY: Filipina

LOCATION: Michigan

Our client is from the Philippines. Her prospective employer-sponsor is willing to petition her for a second-preference employment immigrant visa petition (I-140). Since she has a registered nurse license and the proffered position for her is a mental health program nurse manager, the petition wanted to try going for a “Schedule A” classification. They also wanted to do EB2 (requiring at least a Masters degree or Bachelors degree + 5 yrs experience).

The Department of Labor (DOL) maintains a schedule of occupations in its regulations, Schedule A included, for which the individual permanent labor certification procedure is not required. The schedule of pre-certified occupations is referred to as Schedule A, and is included in DOL regulations at 20 CFR 656.10. Based on an occupation’s inclusion on Schedule A, an employer may file an immigrant visa petition (I-140) directly with the (USCIS) without having to file a Labor Certification with the Department of Labor. Usually, prior to filing I-140 petitions (EB-2 or EB-3 category), the employer must file a Labor Certification to the Department of Labor. However, for Schedule A cases, the employer does not have to go through the labor certification process. We argued that the position of Mental Health Program Nurse Manager should be classified under Schedule A. We argued that it falls under the broad spectrum of “professional nurse” occupations. We also argued that the job description has excerpts that fall under “professional nurse” and that the description justifies the requirements also of a Masters degree in Psychology. It was seemingly a difficult case because it was not a straightforward Schedule A case (like a “registered nurse” position) or a straightforward EB2 case (“nurse practitioners” for example). Employers even have a hard time getting an H-1B for a nurse manager (which requires a Bachelors Degree), so what more if you require a Masters (as is the case for an EB2 petition).

Our client has a Bachelor’s degree in nursing and a Master’s degree in psychology. She also has a registered nursing license in the state of Michigan. Our office was retained on July 25, 2014 and we started on the Prevailing Wage Determination filing and other related matters.

Once the prevailing wage was determined, we filed the I-140 application on September 24, 2014 via premium processing. We included the job offer letter, the notice of filing, employment letter, and other necessary supporting documents. In our cover brief, we included the “ability to pay” argument and why the mental health program nurse manager position falls under a Schedule A and EB2 designation.

On October 1, 2014, without any Request for Evidence (RFE), the USCIS Nebraska Service Center approved her EB-2 I-140 petition. Now, with the approved EB-2 I-140 petition (priority date for EB2 Philippines nationals is current), she can file her adjustment of status application at any time.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Filipina

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our Filipina client came to the United States on a J-1 exchange visitor visa to do her internship in the United States in July 2013. She was not subject to the two-year foreign residency requirement.

She married a U.S. Citizen in June 2014 and retained our office on June 27, 2014 for her adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on July 10, 2014.  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 as well.

On September 30, 2014, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, OH USCIS.  Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our clients as well. On the same day, her green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }