CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status.

NATIONALITY:Filipina

LOCATION: New York, NY

Our client is from the Philippines who came to the U.S. on a J-1 Visa in July 2005.  Upon completion of her J-1 program, she remained in the United States and changed her status to H-1B.  She was subject to the two-year foreign residency requirement.

In April 2013, she got married to her U.S. citizen husband.

She was eligible to get a green card through her marriage to U.S. citizen; however, before we can file her I-130/I-485 application simultaneously, she had to get a waiver of her two-year foreign residency requirement. In order to get a waiver of her two-year foreign residency requirement, she retained our office.

Our office worked on our client’s J-1 waiver.  Eventually, the Philippine Embassy issued a No Objection Statement for our client, and sent this letter to the State Department’s Waiver Review Division.  On November 26, 2013, the Waiver Review Division issued a favorable recommendation based on the No Objection statement. The CIS receipted the fee and issued an I-612 approval notice for our client’s waiver.

After we received the I-612 waiver, our firm prepared and filed an I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application on January 16, 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 through the conference calls.  On April 9, 2014, our client was interviewed at the New York USCIS office.  On the same day, her green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-751

APPLICANT: Filipina

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client contacted our office in early October 2013 regarding her I-751 application.

She is from the Philippines and she married a U.S. citizen in October 2011. Through her marriage, she obtained a 2-year conditional green card in January 2012.  Her conditional residency terminated in January 2014.

To comply with immigration requirements, our client and her husband had to file an I-751 Joint Petition to Remove Conditions. She retained our office again on October 13, 2013 and our office prepared an I-751 application for our client with other supplemental exhibits.

On October 30, 2013, our office filed an I-751 application to the USCIS with multiple affidavits from her friends and family members, joint bank statements, utility bills, insurance policies, and photos of our client and her husband to demonstrate the bona fideness of their marriage.

After the application was filed, the fingerprint notice was issued two weeks later. There was no RFE issuance or interview request for our client’s I-751 application. As a result, on March 15, 2014, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application and our client received her 10-year green card.

{ 0 comments }

 CASE: I-485 based on Approved I-140 (EB-2)

 APPLICANT: Filipino

 LOCATION: Erie, PA

Our client is a family physician from the Philippines, who is currently working at a hospital which was willing to petition him for a second-preference petition (I-140).  Our client has an M.D. degree and is licensed physician in the state of Pennsylvania. He has maintained his status as an H-1B visa holder in the United States.  After talking to our client, our firm concluded that his potential employer can petition him as a Family Medicine Physician. Based on our client’s educational, professional and working background, our office determined that he is clearly eligible for an EB-2 classification for his I-140 petition.

Prior to filing PERM, our firm prepared the prevailing wage request, job order, advertisements, internal job posting, recruitment report, and all other steps which are important pre-PERM filing. Take note that the PERM application could be filed at least 60 days from the job posting date or 30 days from the last ad. Within a week from our retention, the prevailing wage request was filed.  After we obtained the foreign degree evaluation report, our office filed the job order on November 16, 2011.  On May 10, 2012, we promptly filed PERM.  Eventually, on July 17, 2012, a little after two months from filing, the PERM Labor Certification was approved – an EB2 position for the Filipino beneficiary.

We then proceeded with the I-140 Petition filing.  We submitted the “ability to pay” letter for the I-140 petition application.  We included the job offer letter, state physician license, our client’s M.D. degree, and other necessary supporting documents.

The I-140 Petition was filed on September 11, 2012 via regular processing service.  On May 3, 2013, the I-140 EB2 Petition for our Filipino client was approved.

Once the I-140 petition was approved, our client retained our office again for his I-485 adjustment of status application. Our office filed an I-485 adjustment of status application for our client on October 18, 2013. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices and fingerprint appointment came on time.

Eventually, on March 3, 2014, the USCIS Texas Service Center approved our client’s adjustment of status application. He is now a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Adjustment of Status Based on Approved K-1 Visa

CLIENT: Filipino

LOCATION: Dallas, TX

Our client came to the United States in November 2012 as a K-1 visa entrant from the Philippines.  Our client is the beneficiary of an approved I-129F petition. He came to the United States as a K-1 Fiancé of a U.S. Citizen whom he married within 90 days of his entry. By law, if you married your petitioner-fiancé within 90 days of your K-1 visa entry, you are eligible to apply for adjustment of status (green card) in the United States.

Our client contacted our office initially in the middle of February 2013 and consulted with us for his adjustment of status application. After retention, our firm quickly prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on March 11, 2013.  Things went smoothly and the receipt notices, and the fingerprint appointment all came on time.

It is not mandatory to have an adjustment of status interview for an applicant who entered on a K-1 visa.  However, the USCIS may require an interview to test the validity and bona fide nature of the marriage between the Petitioner and Beneficiary. The USCIS did not require an adjustment interview for our client.  On February 19, 2014, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: H-1B Change of Employer

PETITIONER: Fashion Retailer Company

BENEFICIARY: Filipina Textile Product Designer

LOCATION: New York, NY

Our client is a nationwide fashion retailer headquartered in New York City. They contacted our office in late September 2013 to seek assistance from our office for their foreign employee. The beneficiary is from the Philippines and she obtained her Bachelor’s degree in fashion design and marketing. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is textile product developer/designer which we argued qualifies as a specialty occupation

The foreign beneficiary in this case already had her H-1B from her previous employer which was in a similar industry.  Her H-1B status was not yet expired, and she wanted to extend her H-1B status on a change of employer basis.

After retention, our office promptly filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on November 5, 2013 via regular processing.  Since this petition was based on a change of employer, this petition was exempt from the annual cap of the H-1B.  Thus, we could file prior to April 1, 2014.  There were no Requests for Evidence during the processing of the H-1B.  Eventually, our client’s H-1B Petition was approved on February 13, 2014.  Now the Beneficiary can work for her Petitioner-Employer as an H-1B visa holder and she can work there for the next three years.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Adjustment of Status / 245(i)

CLIENT: Filipina

LOCATION: Virginia

Our Filipina client came to the U.S. on an H-1B visa in February 2000. After August 2003, her H-1B visa expired and she overstayed her status. Currently, she resides in Virginia.

Our client contacted us around October of 2010 for consultation and sought legal assistance for her and her minor son’s adjustment of status. After consultation, we determined that she is eligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(i) and the priority date for her case was current for November 2010. Our client retained us on October 14, 2010.

Prior to retaining our firm, her sister filed an I-130 petition for her back in 1990. As some of you know, priority dates for Philippine nationals under the family-based immigration category are more retrogressed than other countries. The I-130 petition was approved by the INS in 1990.  However, she could not apply for her green card until her priority date became current.  Therefore, she had to wait for more than 20 years in order to even apply for her green card.

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 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 November 10, 2010, our office filed their I-485 adjustment of status applications under the 245(i) category for our client and her son.  However, the priority date for the F4 category Philippines backlogged. She got work permits though throughout the duration of the 485’s pendency. Our client had to wait until the priority date becomes current. In February 2014, her priority date became current. Eventually, our client and her son’s adjustment application were approved by the USCIS on February 6. 2014.  After a long wait, our client is finally a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: H-1B Visa Petition

PETITIONER: Nursing Home Facility in Texas

BENEFICIARY: Nurse Manager, Filipino

Our client is a Nursing Home Facility near Houston, TX. They contacted our office in late February to seek legal assistance for their prospective foreign employee.

The beneficiary obtained his Bachelor’s degree in Nursing in the Philippines. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is a Nurse Manager. We argued that this position is a “specialty occupation” and that the minimum requirement for this position is a Bachelor’s Degree in Nursing or its equivalent. We emphasized that Nurse Manager position is clearly different from a registered nurse because Nurse Manager will be responsible for both managerial and clinical duties.

After retention, our office filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on April 1, 2013 via regular processing. However, the USCIS Vermont Service Center issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) on September 9, 2013.

The USCIS argued that the offered position does not qualify as a “specialty occupation.” They claimed that a Bachelor’s degree was not required for this position.  They claimed that the beneficiary’s position is not specialized and complex enough to be qualified as a specialty occupation as the law requires.

In response to the RFE, our office argued in a response brief with  multiple exhibits that the nature of the specific duties are so specialized and complex that knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a Bachelor’s degree.  We also included a detailed statement regarding the number of registered nurses that the Beneficiary will supervise. Moreover, we argued that the degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. Furthermore, we included the organization chart for the department where the beneficiary will be assigned.

Our office filed the response to the USCIS Vermont Service Center on October 30, 2013. Eventually, our client’s H-1B application was approved on January 8, 2014. Now the Beneficiary can work for the Petitioner on an H-1B status until September 12, 2016 as a Nurse Manager.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: H-1B Visa Petition

PETITIONER: Nursing Home Facility in Texas

BENEFICIARY: MDS Coordinator, Filipina

Our client is a Nursing Home Facility near Houston, TX. They contacted our office in late February to seek legal assistance for their prospective foreign employee.

The beneficiary obtained her Bachelor’s degree in Nursing in the Philippines. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is MDS Coordinator. We argued that this position is a “specialty occupation” and that the minimum requirement for this position is a Bachelor’s Degree in Nursing or its equivalent.

After retention, our office filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on April 1, 2013 via regular processing. However, the USCIS Vermont Service Center issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) on August 30, 2013.

The USCIS argued that the offered position does not qualify as a “specialty occupation.” They claimed that a Bachelor’s degree was not required for this position.  They claimed that the beneficiary’s position is not specialized and complex enough to be qualified as a specialty occupation as the law requires.

In response to the RFE, our office argued in a lengthy response brief with  multiple exhibits that the nature of the specific duties are so specialized and complex that knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a Bachelor’s degree.  Moreover, we argued that the degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. Furthermore, we included the organization chart for the department where the beneficiary will be assigned.

Our office filed the response to the USCIS Vermont Service Center on October 31, 2013. Eventually, our client’s H-1B application was approved on January 6, 2014. Now the Beneficiary can work for the Petitioner on an H-1B status until September 14, 2016 as a MDS Coordinator.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: H-1B Petition

PETITIONER: Nursing Home Facility in Texas

BENEFICIARY: Nurse Manager, Filipina

Our client is a Nursing Home Facility near Houston, TX. They contacted our office in late February to seek legal assistance for their prospective foreign employee.

The beneficiary obtained her Bachelor’s degree in Nursing in the Philippines. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is a Nurse Manager. We argued that this position is a “specialty occupation” and that the minimum requirement for this position is a Bachelor’s Degree in Nursing or its equivalent. We emphasized that Nurse Manager position is clearly different from a registered nurse because the Nurse Manager will be responsible for both managerial and clinical duties.

After retention, our office prepared and filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on April 1, 2013 via regular processing. However, the USCIS California Service Center issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) on July 25, 2013.

The USCIS argued that the offered position does not qualify as a “specialty occupation.” They claimed that a Bachelor’s degree was not required for this position.  They claimed that the beneficiary’s position is not specialized and complex enough to be qualified as a specialty occupation as the law requires.

In response to the RFE, our office argued in a response brief with  multiple exhibits that the nature of the specific duties are so specialized and complex that knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a Bachelor’s degree.  We also included a detailed statement regarding the number of registered nurses the Beneficiary will supervise. Moreover, we argued that the degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. Furthermore, we included an organization chart for the department where the beneficiary will be assigned.

Our office filed the response to the USCIS Vermont Service Center on October 16, 2013. Eventually, our client’s H-1B application was approved on December 23, 2013. Now the Beneficiary can work for the Petitioner on an H-1B status until September 13, 2016 as a Nurse Manager.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Change of Status / I-539

NATIONALITY: Filipina

LOCATION: Los Angeles, CA

DATE FILED: September 11, 2013

DATE APPROVED: December 14, 2013

Our client came from the Philippines on an E-2 visa (Dependent of E-2). She was about to turn 21 years old, wanted to maintain valid status, and attend a college in the U.S. Her father was still on an E-2 in Los Angeles, CA. In early August, 2013, our client contacted us to get legal assistance for her change of status from E-2 to F-1.

Upon retention, we went into detail with their reasons for requesting a change of status. We made sure all addresses, contact information, and dates on their statements were complete and accurate. We made sure the SEVIS fees were paid and we obtained the I-20 document from our client. We prepared a brief that explained our client’s financial ability to go to school in the U.S.

The application was supported by corroborating evidence as exhibits to the application to avoid a possible Request for Evidence from the CIS. Our firm filed the I-539 Extension Application on September 11, 2013. Eventually, on December 14, 2013, her change of status application was approved by the USCIS. Now she can stay in the United States and go to college as an F-1 student.

{ 0 comments }