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

Our client came to the United States in January 2010 with an H-2B temporary work visa from the Philippines. She married a U.S. Citizen in January 2011 and retained our office in February of 2011 for her adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on February 15, 2011.  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 May 10, 2011, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS.  We accompanied them at the interview as well.  On May 16, 2011, her green card application was approved, and 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: Sri Lankan (Husband) / Filipino (Wife)
LOCATION: Dallas, Texas

Our clients contacted us in February 2011.  They married in Dubai, U.A.E., and came to the United States.  The husband is a citizen of Sri Lanka and the wife is a citizen of the Philippines. Our client’s family obtained their green card in 2006.  They retained our office to assist them in their naturalization applications.

The application was filed on February 21, 2011 with supporting documents.  Our office prepared them before the interview.  Our clients appeared at the USCIS office in Dallas, Texas on May 12, 2011 for their interviews, and they answered all questions correctly.  On the same day, their N-400s were approved. Their oath taking was on the same day as well. The family is now citizens of the United States.

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: Adjustment of Status
CLIENT: Filipino
LOCATION: Fresno, California

Our client retained us twice for his immigration-related matters.  Back in May, 2010, he contacted our office to get assistance for his H-1B visa petition. He was from the Philippines and was working as a general surgeon for a hospital in Pennsylvania.  Once retained, our office filed his H-1B visa petition on May 5, 2010.  There were no Requests for Evidence with the filing from the USCIS.  His H-1B case was approved on July 12, 2010.  The H-1B was good from October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2013.

Our client retained us once again after he got married to his U.S. Citizen wife.  Our firm filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on November 3, 2010. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. There was no Request for Evidence. He moved from Pennsylvania to California so we submitted a change of address. Our firm thoroughly prepared them for their USCIS interview. On March 8, 2011, our client was interviewed at the CIS office in Fresno, California. That same day, the officer told them that he was granting the petition and the green card application. One week later, he obtained his green card.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings

CLIENT: Filipino

LOCATION: Chicago, IL / Los Angeles, CA

This case is an example of how new immigration regulations applied and helped in a situation where the immigrant beneficiary’s petitioner is deceased before she applied for adjustment of status.  Our client is from the Philippines and came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitor’s visa in 2001.  Since her last admission, she has overstayed in the United States.  Currently, she resides in Chicago, Illinois.

Prior to retaining our firm, her father filed an I-130 petition for her back in 1987. As some of you may know, the 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 1987.  However, she could not apply for her green card until her priority date became current.  Therefore, she had to wait for more than 15 years in order to even apply for her green card.

Unfortunately, her father (I-130 Petitioner) passed away before she was eligible to apply for her green card.  She was placed in removal proceedings after the DHS found out about her overstay in the United States. She was under the impression that nothing could be done since her father (the I-130) petitioner died.

We explained that we can terminate removal proceedings and we can help her adjustment of status application with a substitute sponsor. Our office was retained in November 2010, and we later filed her I-485 Adjustment of Status application with a substitute sponsor (her US Citizen sister) and a Request to Join in a Motion to Terminate with the Department of Homeland Security.

Before 2009, through the more stringent humanitarian reinstatement process, the INS (USCIS now) allowed the foreign national’s spouse, parent, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sibling, child who is at least 18 years of age, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, grandparent, grandchild, or legal guardian to become a substitute sponsor if a family-based visa petitioner dies following the approval of the I-130 petition but before the foreign national obtains permanent residence. Even if the I-130 had been approved, it would be deemed revoked once the petitioner dies. At that time, reinstatement of the revoked petition was not automatic despite a substitute sponsor being available. And the process was still a matter of discretion. The INS had to determine whether “humanitarian reinstatement” was appropriate based on the individual facts of the case.  Thus, the applicant must demonstrate exceptional hardship and request for humanitarian reinstatement if his or her petitioner is deceased before the petition gets reinstated.

Public Law 111-83 (2009) eased this burden for beneficiaries whose petitioners are deceased prior to their adjustment of status application.  The new regulation does not require “humanitarian reinstatement” anymore.  Therefore, as long as there is a qualified substitute sponsor for these beneficiaries, the beneficiaries are eligible for adjustment of status even if the original petitioners are deceased.

Our client’s US citizen sister was willing to become a substitute sponsor for our client. On January 5, 2011, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to Terminate proceedings with her I-485 application and supporting documents.  Our client’s master calendar hearing was scheduled on February 2, 2011 at the Los Angeles Immigration Court (Although she currently resides in Chicago, IL, her NTA was served in Los Angeles and she did not change her venue).

Prior to her hearing, the DHS counsel in Los Angeles agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. With this joint motion, Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office represented our client at the Los Angeles Immigration Court.  Attorney Yu explained the new regulation and how this law applied to our client’s situation before the Immigration Judge.  The Immigration Judge granted termination without prejudice and her case is now with the USCIS Chicago Office, awaiting adjudication.

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-2 Waiver of Two-Year Foreign Residency Requirement Post-Divorce, I-130, and I-485 Green Card Process

NATIONALITY: Filipino

LOCATION: New Jersey

Our client is a Filipino national who came to the U.S. on a J-2 Visa. He came with his ex-wife who was on a J-1 Visa. Both were 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. (Please read the article below for more details about J-1 Waiver and 2 year foreign residency requirement).

He got divorced from his wife and later on thought of marrying his U.S. Citizen girlfriend. He consulted with our firm on whether he can apply for a green card upon marriage. We told him he could not because he is still subject to the two-year foreign residency requirement. We first had to do a waiver of this requirement. Our firm was retained to do this J-2 waiver on April 7, 2010. On April 9, 2010 the J-2 Waiver was filed to the Department of State. We also sent a request to the DOS to be an interested government agency and recommend this waiver based on the fact that our client is divorced from the J-1 visa holder. On April 28, 2010 the DOS recommended to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) that our client be granted a waiver. On May 28, 2010, the USCIS approved the waiver of the 2-year foreign residency requirement.

After our office got his waiver, our client got married in a few months. Our office then filed the I-130 Petition, I-765 Work Authorization Form and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on September 3, 2010. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. On November 10, 2010, our client got his work authorization card from the USCIS.

In early December, Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu thoroughly prepared our client and his wife for their upcoming USCIS marriage interview. We prepared our clients with potential questions at the interview.  On December 9, 2010, our client was interviewed in Newark, New Jersey. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen)Yu accompanied the clients at the interview as well.  After the interview, on the same day, the USCIS officer granted our client’s adjustment of status application.  Our client finally is now a green card holder.

Pursuant to federal immigration law, our office first obtained a J-2 waiver for our client before we filed the I-130/I-485.  Our client’s J-2 waiver was approved less than two months after we filed it.  Also, it only took three months for our client to get his green card once we filed client’s I-130 and I-485 applications simultaneously.

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: Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Filipino

LOCATION: Florida

POTENTIAL ISSUES PRE-RETENTION: Immigrant Intent

Our firm was consulted on June 8, 2010. Our client got married to a U.S. Citizen on December 6, 2009, returned to the Philippines, then came back here as a tourist. They originally met in the Philippines when her husband was stationed there for a few years due to work. When our client last came to the U.S. as a tourist, despite being married to a U.S. Citizen, at that point they intended to actually go back to the Philippines because her US Citizen husband’s employer may start another term and contract with their client in the Philippines. Even the alien beneficiary, who has been working for a Philippine employer, was in the States on a leave of absence, and was not terminated yet by her company. There clearly was no immigrant intent, though an officer may suspect that there was due to her entry as a tourist, application for adjustment of status months later, and her marriage to a U.S. Citizen prior to her most recent entry. Our firm filed the Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on July 9, 2010. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. There was no Request for Evidence. On September 28, 2010, we prepared our clients for the interview for over an hour, specifically addressing the fact that she had no immigrant intent on her entry, and highlighting their evidence in support of the lack of immigrant intent through factors such as her return ticket, leave of absence, husband’s employer’s contract with a Philippine company etc. On October 6, 2010, our client was interviewed in Jacksonville, Florida. That same day, the officer told them that he was granting the petition and the green card application.

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-90

POTENTIAL ISSUES PRE-RETENTIONS: “Mortgage-Fraud” California Statute: Crime of Moral Turpitude or Not? Deportable Offense or Not?

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Filipino

LOCATION: California

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) at section 237 allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to deport someone who has committed a crime involving moral turpitude, commonly referred to as a CIMT, if the conviction occurred within five (5) years after admission and the conviction was for a crime for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed.

Our client’s green card was about to expire, and she wanted to apply for an extension, but she was hesitant due to a criminal conviction she had. She was convicted under California law for what her attorney termed as “mortgage fraud”.

Our firm did research on the specific California statute and analyzed it under Crime of Moral Turpitude immigration law. We explained that a line of cases view convictions under any statute related to fraud as a CIMT, which can potentially make her deportable. We also found that some “fraud-like” statutes are not actually fraud, but could be classified as “regulatory violations”, which are not CIMTs. If the CIS deems her conviction as a CIMT, not only will the green card extension be denied, she also would be deportable.

After extensive research and analysis, our firm found that we had a very argument in classifying her conviction as a regulatory violation and not fraud, and thus she does not have a CIMT. We filed the I-90 extension in July 22, 2010. Our client was fingerprinted and a background check was conducted for her. Upon review of her case, the CIS deemed that she indeed does not have a CIMT and is not deportable. Her I-90 was approved on September 20, 2010 and her green card was extended for ten 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. 

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CASE: I-130 / I-485

APPLICANT: Filipino

LOCATION: Nevada

ISSUES: Immigrant Intent

Our client was married to a U.S. Citizen before she entered the United States as a tourist. On her last entry, she intended to visit and spend Christmas with his husband, and then come back to the Philippines and get petitioned over there. She even had her return ticket. When she was at the port of entry in Las Vegas, she was inspected and admitted as a tourist, and she was honest in telling the officer that she was visiting her husband. No other questions and she was let in. After a few months with her husband, they both decided to pursue adjustment of status here and first consulted with our firm. We informed them prior to retention that immigrant intent will be the major issue. We had to prove despite her marriage in the Philippines before entry on a tourist visa that her intent on that last entry was to visit, and not to eventually immigrate. They understood and were firm on their case – the beneficiary really did not intend to immigrate when she last entered the U.S. Our firm was retained pro bono and the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status application were filed. Within 60 days our client got her work permit. Prior to their interview, our firm prepared both husband and wife for the interview. We focused on the bona fide marriage and immigrant intent issues. On August 18, 2010, both were interviewed at the Las Vegas CIS office. They both did well and the officer gave our client a stamped approval at the conclusion of the interview. She will receive her green card in a week.

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
PETITIONER: Hospital
BENEFICIARY: Physician / General Surgeon, Filipino
LOCATION: Pennsylvania

H-1B filed on behalf of a hospital in Pennsylvania for a Filipino physician / general surgeon on May 5, 2010. No Requests for Evidence with the filing and the Petitioner did not opt for premium processing. The case was approved on July 12, 2010. The H-1B is good from October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2013.

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-751 Late Filing For Good Cause Approval
ISSUES: Late Filing; Establishing Good Cause for Failure to File
LOCATION: Boston, Massachusetts

Our client is a Filipino national living in Boston who was on a 2-year conditional green card. She got her green card based on a bona fide marriage with her U.S. Citizen husband. She and her husband jointly filed an I-751 to remove conditions on a green card prior to its expiration in July 2009. This was in order to get her 10-year green card. However, as they were not represented by counsel, she missed the requirement of having to  provide the biometrics fee for her daughter, who was also a conditional resident as a derivative. In early August 2009, after the expiration date of the 2-year conditional green card, the application was returned since they missed the biometrics fee. Since the letter appeared to only request for the fee, they responded  and re-filed the application with the addition of the requested biometrics fee without any explanation for the “late filing”. As mentioned, the conditional residence status expired in late July. The checks were cashed and they were eventually issued with a receipt notice and fingerprint appointment. Everything it seemed went well as they received letters from the Immigration Service stating that their status was extended for a year while the I-751 was pending. However, in January 2010, the I-751 was denied due to “late filing”. Our office was consulted after this and we suggested a re-file of the I-751 with a letter and supporting documents arguing that there was good cause for failure to file. We argued that the August 2010 letter appeared to be a Request for Evidence and that it is reasonable for a couple with no legal representation to think there was no need to provide an argument for “late filing” when they re-filed the I-751. We also attached proof of bona fide marriage and cited the specific law which allows for this late filing. On June 27, 2010, the I-751 was finally approved and our client’s 10-year green card was issued.

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 }