We filed a petition premium processing for the beneficiary who qualified based on her extraordinary engineering contributions. Her substantial and highly scientific contributions paved the way for commercial manufacturing of flexible displays by major, well-known display manufacturing companies. The beneficiary’s commercialized research was featured on Amazon.com. She had over eight years of research experience in the nanotechnology field resulting in multiple patents. We also provided documentary evidence of the beneficiary’s research publications in prestigious scientific journals as well as the lengthy citation record of these articles. The beneficiary was employed with a private employer therefore we submitted documentation of the petitioner’s R&D staff to show at least 3 full time researchers. We also provided documentary evidence to show the accomplishments of the employer as well as their ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage, which included a letter from the CFO, the beneficiary’s tax return, W-2, and recent pay stubs. The petition was aproved without an RFE.
Immigration.com Sample Cases
We filed a petition premium processing for the beneficiary who qualified based on his original contributions, publication record, featured research work in the media and service as a judge of the works of his research peers. USCIS seems to have accepted the veracity of our claim for outstanding ability without a question. We were issued a request for evidence asking only for proof of the petitioner’s ability to pay. We supplied the most recent financial report of the petitioner, a letter from the CFO as well as copies of the beneficiaries W2 and most recent pay stubs. The case was approved within a week.
A recruiting firm for accountants retained our services to file an H-1B petition for a recruiter. Typically, it is difficult to justify that the position of a recruiter qualifies as an H-1B level occupation. Our petition to USCIS argued, however, that even though recruiters do not generally qualify as a specialty level occupation, the present case is different because the beneficiary will be hired as an International Accounting/Finance Recruiter. Accordingly, since the job duties of such a position are sufficiently complex to require knowledge of accounting, taxation, audit etc., the position requires the incumbent to possess at least a bachelor’s degree in the relevant field. Consequently, USCIS issued an RFE raising the issue of specialty occupation. We responded by providing the beneficiary’s expanded job description and detailed project description, the employer’s past hiring practices and other supporting evidence. This case was approved.
We were retained to represent a client whose L-1A was denied because USCIS was not convinced that the job qualified as a “Managerial Level” position for the client’s small restaurant business that had 8-10 employees. The Beneficiary was out of status and has already started accruing unlawful presence. We reviewed the paperwork submitted by the previous attorney and suggested that the client file a Motion to Reopen on the basis of certain defects. We also filed a new L-1A extension petition. We argued very that the size of the business is not the exclusive factor in determining managerial capacity and Beneficiary can qualify for L-1A as a “Functional Manager” even if he is not supervising any employee. Initially we received an RFE, which we responded to empathically, citing several decided cases and regulations and reasoning that the size of business and number of employees supervised are not exclusive factors in determining “managerial capacity.” USCIS accepted our arguments and approved the L-1A petition, but without an I-94.
L-1A without an I-94 would not have put Beneficiary in lawful status. The major challenge we were facing was that this beneficiary could be potentially subject to a bar from reentering USA. We advised the client not to travel abroad and to fight in US for grant of an I-94. We recommended filing another L-1A petition specifically requesting USCIS to approve L-1A with an I-94. We filed the L-1A amended petition with nunc pro tunc request for amendment of stay. We cited business necessity and implications if Beneficiary is not allowed to reenter. This time USCIS accepted our nunc pro tunc request and issued L-1A with a backdated I-94, excusing the entire unlawful presence and out of status period.
The head-quarters for the sponsoring employer were located outside the United States. The applicant worked in the United States at a branch office, which had fewer than 5 employees. Because of the head-quarters location and the US branch office size, the DOL questioned the existence of the company in the United States. We responded with evidence of the sponsoring employer’s business in the United States and the PERM Petition was certified.
The sponsoring employer was a small company (less than 20 employees) that was sponsoring the brother of the president. The Labor Certification was audited due to the familial relationship, which is a significant issue in the PERM process. We successfully responded by proving that the relationship between the president and the applicant did not influence or affect the PERM Processing. The I-140 petition and I-485 petitions were approved, and the applicant received his permanent residency.
In a case decided yesterday, we had filed an appeal to BALCA against a PERM denial by the Certifying Officer (“CO”). The ground for denial was that the Job Order did not provide the exact salary offered to the foreign worker. We showed in our appeal that the fault lay with the Job Order form of the State Workforce Agency. The form did not permit us to enter the higher end of the wage range for our job, where we had offered a wage range instead of an exact figure. The CO appears to have agreed with us and has withdrawn denial and certified our case.
We filed an EB-1, Outstanding Researcher petition premium processing for the beneficiary who qualified based on her extraordinary contributions in applied sciences. Her substantial and highly innovative contributions paved the way for commercial manufacturing of flexible displays by major, well-known display manufacturing companies. The beneficiary’s commercialized research was well documented. She has over eight years of research experience in the nanotechnology field producing a multitude of patents. We also provided documentary evidence of the beneficiary’s research publications in prestigious scientific journals as well as the lengthy citation record of these articles. What was unusual about this case was that the beneficiary did not have a PhD, which is the norm for many, if not most EB-1 cases.
We had a Labor certification case filed for an IT professional. The requirements were Bachelor's degree and 5 years of experience. We filed I-140 under EB-2 category. After approximately 8 months, USCIS sent us an RFE saying Bachelor's plus five years would not qualify under EB2 unless the experience required is progressive in nature. We knew that USCIS was wrong under the circumstances of the case, but an argument with the government was unnecessary because the EB-3 priority dates were then current. In the RFE, the employer was also given an option of changing the classification to EB3. After discussion it was decided that employer will accept EB-3 classification since the priority dates for EB-3 category were current. Then the EB3 and EB2 priority dates slipped back.
Recently when the EB-2 PD became current for our client, we applied again for an EB-2 I-140 using the same labor certification.
The I-140 approval was received along with the I-485 approval notice.
We have received two interesting B-2 extensions. It has been my view that under certain circumstances B-2 can and should be permitted by USCIS to be used even where the applicant has an immigrant intent or is otherwise staying longer than usual in USA. Apparently, USCIS agrees.
In the first case, we were preparing an EB-5 (One Million Dollar investment) for an applicant who was here on a B-2 visa. So, we disclosed fully to the government that we have immigrant intent, but should not be required to leave because we are in the process of investing. A forced visit back to home country serves no useful purpose. USCIS approved the case.
In the second case, we have just received a third B-2 extension for the parent of a green card holder. The applicant suffers from chronic ailments and needs to be monitored. Both his sons live in USA (H-1 and green card). Once again, USCIS approved the case.