CASE: Adjustment of Status at Removal Proceeding
CLIENT: Ukrainian
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in April 2009 with a J-1 exchange visitor’s visa from Ukraine. His J-1 visa did not make him subject to the 2-year foreign residency requirement.  Later, he filed an asylum and his asylum interview was conducted by the USCIS. His case was referred to the Cleveland Immigration Court. His case was administratively closed in March 2016. 

He married a U.S. Citizen in January 2017.  Our client’s wife filed an I-130 petition on behalf of our client, and this I-130 petition was approved by USCIS in October 2018. Once the I-130 petition was approved, he client retained our office in December 2018 for his removal proceedings. 

Our office prepared and filed a Motion to Recalendar to the Cleveland Immigration Court on December 5, 2018. His case was recalendared to the immigration judge’s docket and our office prepared and filed an I-485 Adjustment of Status Application.

On January 4, 2021, Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu represented our client’s at his Individual Hearing for adjustment of status at the Cleveland Immigration Court. The Immigration Judge granted our client’s adjustment of status relief.  Our client’s removal proceeding has been terminated. Now, our client is a green card holder.    

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Adjustment of Status at Removal Proceeding
CLIENT: Cameroonian
LOCATION: Columbus, OH (USCIS) / Cleveland, OH (EOIR)

Our client came to the United States in December 2013 on a F-1 student visa from Cameroon. Later, she filed an asylum application and her asylum interview was conducted by the USCIS. Her case was referred to the Cleveland Immigration Court and she retained our office for the representation of her removal proceedings in 2017. 

She married a U.S. Citizen in October 2018.  Our client’s husband filed I-130 petition on behalf of our client, and this I-130 petition was approved by USCIS Columbus Field Office in July 2019. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu, Esq. from our office accompanied our clients.   Once the I-130 petition is approved, our office prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application, pre-hearing memorandum, and other supporting documents to the Cleveland Immigration Court.

On August 19, 2019, Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu represented our client’s at her Individual Hearing for adjustment of status at the Cleveland Immigration Court.  After the hearing, the Immigration Judge granted our client’s adjustment of status relief. Our client’s removal proceeding is terminated simultaneously. Now, our client becomes a green card holder.    

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Mexican

LOCATION: Pennsylvania

Our client came to the United States from Mexico on a B-2 visitor’s visa in 2002. He has remained in the United States since then.  He married a U.S. Citizen in February 2018 and retained our office for his green card application.

Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on March 20, 2018.  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 March 12, 2019, our client was interviewed at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office also accompanied our client as well.

The interview went well. However, the USCIS issued Request for Evidence (RFE) for our client to submit his updated medical record (I-693) and certified court disposition for his previous minor criminal record.  Our office filed the Response to RFE on April 4, 2019. Eventually, on April 12, 2019, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Nigerian

LOCATION: San Antonio, TX

Our client came to the United States from Nigeria on a F-1 student’s visa in August 2015. He married a U.S. Citizen in July 2018 and retained our office on July 26, 2018 for his green card application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on October 11, 2018. 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 April 11, 2019, our client was interviewed at the San Antonio, Texas USCIS office. Eventually, on the same day of his interview, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Adjustment of Status at Removal Proceeding
CLIENT: Gabonese
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States in July 2011 with a B-2 visitor’s visa from Gabon.  Later, she filed for asylum and her asylum application was denied by the immigration judge in Cleveland. She filed a BIA appeal and the BIA remanded her case in 2016.  She married a U.S. Citizen in October 2017. Our client’s husband filed an I-130 petition on behalf of our client, and this I-130 petition was approved by the USCIS Cincinnati Field Office in August 2018. However, she also applied for adjustment of status and this was administratively closed due to removal proceedings.  Our client contacted our office to seek legal representation.

Our client retained us on November 16, 2018. Thereafter, our office prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application and other supporting documents to the Cleveland Immigration Court at her Master Calendar hearing on December 11, 2018. We withdrew our client’s asylum case as well.   

On April 12, 2019, Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu represented our client’s at her Individual Hearing for adjustment of status at the Cleveland Immigration Court.  After the hearing, the Immigration Judge granted our client’s adjustment of status relief. Our client’s removal proceeding is terminated simultaneously. Now, our client becomes a green card holder.    

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-485 Approval
CLIENT: Indonesian
LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client came to the U.S. on a valid B-2 visa from Indonesia in March 2003. Our client had a final order of removal after his asylum case was denied at the Cleveland Immigration Court and then by the BIA.

In December 2011, our client married his U.S. Citizen wife and through our office, filed an I-130 petition on January 3, 2012. Unfortunately, our client was picked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement due to his final order. So after we obtained the I-130 receipt notice, even before the I-130 was approved, we filed a Motion to Reopen on January 10, 2012, within the 90-day deadline for filing Motions to Reopen with the BIA.

Eventually, the BIA granted our client’s Motion to Reopen on February 8, 2012, and remanded it to the Immigration Judge to allow our client to apply for adjustment of status (green card). Our client got out of jail.

Our client’s I-130 interview was scheduled on July 23, 2012 at Cleveland USCIS Field Office. Prior to the interview, our office thoroughly prepared our client and his wife for the interview. Attorney Sarmiento also accompanied them for their interview. The I-130 petition was eventually approved the next day.

After the I-130 was approved, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to Terminate proceedings with a copy of the I-485 application and supporting documents. The DHS counsel in Cleveland agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings at our client’s Master Calendar hearing on November 7, 2012. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice.

Once his case was terminated by the Immigration Court, our office prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on November 27, 2012, together with other necessary forms and supporting documents. 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 over the conference all.

On February 7, 2013, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland CIS office. Our client was fully prepared and the interview went well.  On the same day, his green card application was 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. 

For other marriage-based green card success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

<a href=”https://plus.google.com/107743308565341841259?rel=author”>Google</a>

<a href=”https://plus.google.com/109631653288081090975″ rel=”publisher”>Google+</a>

{ 0 comments }

CASE:  I-130
CLIENT: Mexican
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client is from Mexico who came to the U.S. without inspection and admission in 1988 with her parents. Since that time, she never left the United States.

In November 1991, our client’s father filed an I-130 (F2A) petition for her mother.  This I-130 petition was approved in March 1992.  At the time the I-130 Petition was approved, our client was a minor and was a derivative beneficiary. However, our client’s parents divorced in 2007.  Furthermore, our client was placed in removal proceeding in December 2009.

Around November 2010, our client contacted our office to represent her at removal proceedings. After we reviewed her previous immigration documents, we determined that she might be eligible to adjust her status under INA 245(i) and the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA).  She retained our office on December 1, 2010 and our attorney represented her at her master calendar hearing.  Cancellation of Removal relief was requested and we preserved possible adjustment of status relief through INA 245(i) and CSPA.

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.

Section 3 of CSPA, codified in section 203(h) of the INA, provides that “If the age of the alien is determined to be 21 years of age or older… the alien’s petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.”

Our client was the derivative beneficiary of her father’s petition for her mother in November, 1991.  Our client is now older than 21. According to Section 3 of CSPA, a new I-130 petition by our client’s father on behalf of our client should automatically retain the priority date of the original I-130 petition, which was November 1991, in which our client was a derivative beneficiary. If this new I-130 is approved with a November 1991 priority date, our client would be eligible to adjust under 245(i) since the priority date is current and the petition was filed before January 1998.  So it was two petitions that saved her case, one for 245i, and the other for adjustment eligibility, retaining the old priority date under CSPA.

On January 11, 2012, our office filed the I-130 Petition with a cover brief (citing the CSPA provision) and other supporting documents.  Her I-130 was approved by the USCIS California Service Center on June 14, 2012 with the old priority date (November 1991).  Now, we can work on terminating her proceedings for CIS adjustment of status.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

For other 245i success stories, please click here.

For other CSPA success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of DHS, Janet Napolitano, issued a memorandum on new prosecutorial discretion standards pertaining to certain illegal aliens. She started by stating that immigrants who were illegally brought to the United States as children “lacked the intent to violate the law” and pose few national security risks.  If the individual meets the following criteria, that person will not be deported or removed from the United States as a result of the prosecutorial discretion.

• Came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
• Has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and is present  in the United States on the date of this memorandum;
• Is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general education development certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;
• Has not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety; and
• Is not above the age of thirty.

For individuals who are granted deferred action by either ICE or USCIS, USCIS shall accept applications to determine whether these individuals qualify for work authorization during this period of deferred action.

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: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition / I-485 under the INA 245(i) provision
CLIENT: St. Lucian
LOCATION: New York, NY

Our client is from St. Lucia who came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitors visa in December 2003. Since that time, she never left the United States.  Because of her overstay, removal proceedings was initiated against her in September 2010.

In May 1986, our client’s aunt filed an I-130 (fourth preference) petition for her father.  This I-130 petition was approved in August 1986.  At the time the I-130 Petition was approved, our client was a minor and was a derivative beneficiary. Later, our client’s father filed an I-130 petition on behalf of our client in February 1998.  This Petition was approved in November of that year.

Our client contacted us around December of 2010 for consultation and sought legal assistance for her removal proceedings. After the consultation, we determined that she is eligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(i). Our client retained us on January 13, 2011.

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.

Our client was the beneficiary of her father’s petition in February 1998, which is current, but this by itself would not have allowed her to adjust status since this was filed after January 1998 and because she came in 2003, thus not meeting the December 21, 2000 physical presence requirement. However, she was also the beneficiary of a petition filed before January 14, 1998, that of her aunt’s petition for her father. So it was two petitions that saved her case, one for 245i, and the other for adjustment eligibility.

Once retained, our office promptly filed a Motion to Change Venue from Buffalo to New York.  This was granted and on April 1, 2011, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to Terminate proceedings with an attached I-485 application and its supporting documents. The DHS counsel in New York agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to Terminate without prejudice on August 17, 2011.

Once her case was terminated, the USCIS New York scheduled an I-485 interview for our client. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our client through conference call. On May 1, 2012, our client was interviewed at the New York City USCIS office. Attorney JP Sarmiento accompanied her at the interview as well. Due to the complexity of the case, we made sure the officer was clear about our client’s 245i eligibility. On May 30, 2012, our client’s I-485 application was approved.  She finally became a green card holder.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

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

For 245i success stories, please click here.

For termination success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact us anytime for free consultations.

{ 0 comments }

On November 7, 2011, the USCIS published a policy memorandum regarding the priorities that they will follow in placing certain immigrants in removal proceedings through the Notice to Appear).

This newly issued policy memo provides guidance to USCIS officers on how to initially issue the NTA.  The policy memo states that cases involving fraud, serious crimes, categorized as aggravated felonies under the Immigration and Nationality Act, (murder, rape, sexual abuse of minors, possession and/or trafficking in illicit firearms and explosives, crimes of violence, ransom, child porn, human trafficking, drug trafficking, alien smuggling, human rights violators, gang members, and re-entry after a prior deportation), and threats to national security will be the top immigration enforcement priority. Other cases are categorized as “non-egregious public safety” cases. Depending on the circumstances of each case, the policy memo requires the USCIS to follow a complicated referral procedure where USCIS will refer the case to ICE first and let ICE decide whether it is worth their while to pursue. Absent a finding by ICE, USCIS will not issue an NTA in those cases. In other cases, USCIS may automatically refer the cases for an NTA.

Also, under this new policy, USCIS will issue NTAs where required by statute or regulation.  For example, such cases include termination of conditional permanent resident status, denials of form I-751 petitions, denials of form I-829 petitions by entrepreneurs to remove conditions, termination of refugee status, denials of NACARA 202 and HRIFA adjustments, referrals of asylum cases to immigration court, and when an asylum applicant withdraws his/her application.  USCIS will also issue an NTA if a Statement of Findings substantiating fraud is part of the record.

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

{ 0 comments }