We represented a client and her minor child. They had filed their I-485 applications as derivative applicants. Two months after the I-485 filing, the primary applicant, her husband died in a tragic accident. USCIS requested biometrics for all applicants, but she did not appear because she was informed that her I-485 application would not survive the death of the primary applicant. We filed a motion to reopen the case, showing that the applicant was and is legally entitled to survivor benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act. USCIS reopened the case for the applicant and her minor child in approximately six weeks. Her I-485 has been reinstated.
Immigration.com Sample Cases
We represented an IT consulting company and a Senior Software Engineer employed by them from the point forward where they received an RFE. USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) questioning accreditation of the Indian universities where the applicant received his degrees. We researched the universities in question and documented that both are highly regarded and world renowned institutions. Additionally, we received an expert opinion that noted that both universities were accredited at the time the applicant received his degrees. In our response, we pointed out that there is more than one relevant accreditation body in India and both universities in question were and are recognized by the Indian government. The case was approved in about two weeks.
We represented an applicant after his application for naturalization was denied. He had obtained permanent resident status through marriage with a U.S. citizen. Applicant’s Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, was denied because of a failure to meet the good moral character requirement. USCIS questioned the veracity of applicant’s marriage, and therefore the basis of his Green Card approval. Strangely enough, this issue was raised at the naturalization stage. We procured various items of evidence attesting to the genuineness of applicant’s marriage, and established that although applicant’s job required frequent travel and relocation, his marriage was entered into in good faith. We emphasized that USCIS must take into view the unique circumstances of the applicant’s life. Applicant was granted a hearing before an officer, and received his N-400 approval within eight weeks.
We have received a series of reversals and remands from the USCIS appeals office (“AAO”) where we had argued that the USCIS had erroneously and illegally revoked approved I-140 petitions. The grounds of appeal in the cases involved:
Failure to prove qualifications of employee because the documentation of experience was insufficient;
Successorship-in-interest of companies, where one company was acquired by another;
Legality of “roving jobs,” consulting positions that require periodic relocation.
The revocation of the I-140s have been reversed and USCIS has been asked to revisit their decision. We are by no means out of the woods yet, but at least we are vindicated in our understanding that these decisions were against law and policy.
We have won a series of cases where USCIS had earlier held that unpaid employment under OPT was legally unacceptable to maintain status. We have argued that such holding is contrary to all law, policy and precedence. Students are NOT required to engage in PAID employment. All these cases were won after we filed our briefs pursuant to Motions to Reopen (MTR).
We have received a particularly remarkable green card approval a few weeks ago. USCIS alleged fraud and denied the green card where the spouse of a US citizen had entered the US on visa waiver and then applied for Adjustment of Status (AOS) within a few days after entry. We were retained once the green card had been denied. The allegations of fraud or misrepresentation are particularly troublesome because they operate as a PERMANENT bar against immigration. There is a narrowly tailored waiver available, but it can be difficult to obtain. We filed a Motion to Reopen the denied AOS and applied for a new AOS with the waiver request. Here comes the tricky part -- the waiver request form requires us to concede that we have committed fraud. That was untrue. Our clients had acted innocently. USCIS was of the opinion we must checkmark the box on the waiver form that admits to fraud. I refused to permit that. The reason: if we admit fraud under penalty of perjury, and that admission is false; would that admission not amount to perjury and perhaps fraud? We were willing to take this matter to court. We had sufficient evidence on the record indicating innocence. To our relief, USCIS approved the AOS without further inquiry. PS Note that entering the US on any short term visa (except K visas and dual intent visas like H-1, L-1, etc. – I have a blog entry on what are dual intent visas) and trying to convert to a long term visa or green card can be viewed with suspicion by USCIS. From: Rajiv. Click HERE to watch a video on this discussion. Adjustment of Status Form I-130 Form I-485 ESTA Fraud/Misrepresentation Waiver Engineers
We filed a petition premium processing for a self-petitioning researcher. The petitioner had over 15 years of research experience in the nanotechnology field. He had an extraordinary research career which included 52 scholarly scientific articles with over 1,020 citations of his work. His publications were featured in numerous high impact international journals. In addition to his noteworthy research publications, the petitioner was a highly sought after reviewer for a multitude of prestigious, international scientific journals. He was also selected to an editorial board. His research was noted as having a significant impact in his field and the multitude of leading experts that opined on his international acclaim identified him as “one of the very few in their field that had reached the highest level of achievement.” The petitioner had sustained international acclaim for his extraordinary research and as a result his work was featured in several major trade publications. We also submitted evidence to show that as a result of the petitioner’s extraordinary research career he was nominated as a member of a highly prestigious scientific research society.
As a result of the petitioner’s substantial volume of evidence reflecting his extraordinary qualifications, USCIS approved the case within five days.
The main applicant and his wife filed their I-485 petitions together. At the time of filing, the wife was pregnant. In regards to the required medical examination, there are certain vaccinations that should not be given during pregnancy as they could affect the fetus. After the birth of the baby, the mother is then able to return to the doctor and get the vaccinations that are required the GC process. In this case, the mother’s intention was to breast feed her baby for at least 2 years. They wanted to apply for a waiver of the vaccinations of any kind because she didn't want to get them while breast feeding, regardless of what the doctor said about vaccinations being safe for the nursing baby. We were able to get the I-485 approved for both the main applicant and wife without receiving an RFE or having to file the waiver.
Our office was retained to file a B-1/B-2 extension on behalf of a 34-year old male who was diagnosed with autism and requires ongoing supervision and monitoring. He is dependent on his mother, a permanent resident of the US, who is his legal guardian and only source of care. His father is a resident of Botswana. Botswana regulations do not make provisions for a child above the age of 21 to reside in the country as a dependent. Even in the US, regulations do not consider children over the age of 21 to be dependents of their parents. Our office submitted the extension request to Service requesting discretionary relief as permitted in appropriated cases where family members are not eligible for derivative status. The extension request was approved without an RFE.
USDOL had denied a series of cases for many employers represented by various law firms. The ground of denial was that when "engineering" was one of the acceptable majors for an IT job, that created too much ambiguity for a case to be approved. DOL stated that there are fields of engineering, such as Agricultural Engineering, which are clearly inapplicable to IT positions.
This ruling had become a nation wide issue.
We filed an MTR pointing out the defects, legal and factual, in the ruling. We also indicated our willingness to litigate this highly unfair ruling in federal courts. DOL has, most appropriately, reversed their decision.