We won an EB-1 Outstanding Researcher case for an applicant with a Ph.D. in Experimental Chemical Physics filing under Premium Processing. The case was decided within two days of submission. The applicant had over eleven years of research experience and an abundance of publications as a result of his extensive list of original findings. As a result of the multitude of publications in prestigious, international scientific journals, the applicant’s work was also extensively cited. We provided copies of the articles along with the data regarding the significance of the journals, which included printouts from Google Scholar and the ISI master journal list. We provided documentary evidence on each of the journals to show the reputation in the field. We also provided copies of the cited work, highlighting the citations as well as the reference section. As a result of the extensive publication list, we were also able to provide documentary evidence to reflect the significance of his “original” scientific contributions to the field.
Immigration.com Sample Cases
We have won a case for a Ph.D. in Immunology for EB1, Outstanding Researcher following an elaborate Request for Evidence. The applicant had extensive research experience in the following areas: Pathology, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Immunology. USCIS requested additional documentary evidence to support the initial evidence that the applicant qualified based on his acting as judge of others’ work, numerous publications with accompanying citations as well as substantial evidence of “original” scientific contributions. We offered additional supporting documents that included letters from prominent military officials noting requests for applicant to review proposals, elaborate details on the significance and impact of the journals where the applicant’s research work had been published as well as documentary evidence to support the international reputation the applicant had gained as reflected by the multitude of citations in prominent scientific journals in his field. We provided evidence to confirm that the applicant’s ongoing noteworthy research was based on his “original” scientific contributions and that his work had a significant impact on the overall health and well-being of not only the U.S. military personnel but also the citizens of the country.
Last week we received an approval for a difficult change of status RFE. We were retained to respond to an RFE for a client who had no ties to his home country (India). Six years of his H-1 were over and he was trying to get into F-1 status. He had been working and studying in Europe before coming to USA on H-1. We presented the facts of our client's background with complete honesty and sincerity. No games (which is the way all our cases are presented). I am glad to report that as has always been my belief, truthful presentation works.
We have been retained by several consulting companies to try to respond to their RFE's all of which require a letter from the end-client. Many times, despite best efforts, such letters are not available. So, as a test case, we filed an Request For Evidence is a a request from a government agency to provide further information on an issue before the government.
We have been retained by several consulting companies to try to respond to their RFE's all of which require a letter from the end-client. Many times, despite best efforts, such letters are not available. So, as a test case, we filed an RFE response without an end-client letter. As usual, USCIS wished for a confirmation of job duties, employer-employee relationship and duration of project. We made several legal arguments including pointing out repeated misapplication of the law by USCIS.
So far, we have received two approvals of H-1 without letters from end-clients.
See also my article on this subject.
As of May 2009, we have been involved with over 100 investigations from USDOL, ICE, USDOJ, DOS and FBI. One theme that emerges quite clearly is this. A governmental investigation is NOT the same thing as a normal litigation. The investigators are all things rolled into one: police, prosecutor and judge. I have seen so many investigations being mishandled because counsel failed to recognize this truth. By the time we get called in, it gets difficult to mop up the mess. I like to believe that all investigations that we have handled from the beginning have brought good results. While the government has a lot of power, they are not omnipotent. Some items have to be firmly and politely declined. And of course, where necessary, we are willing to go to court over our stand. Folks, investigations have become a way of life. We just have to be prepared for them. When we conduct preventative audits for clients, we point out the things in their files that need to be addressed and improved. In my view, it is extremely important that audits of existing files and procedures be conducted.
We have recently been able to successfully reopen a labor certification and get the case approved after it had been closed because of what we feel were errors by two previous lawyers retained by employer. Our client had her case denied and closed over ONE YEAR ago. We were retained for a consultation and in-depth review. It appeared obvious that the employer and the employee were not at fault. It took some effort but the facts were compelling enough that USDOL reopened the case in the interest of justice. The case was approved last week. We truly appreciate the fairness shown by USDOL.
We filed an applicant's N-400 Petition for Citizenship where the applicant was out of the US for 400+ days. USCIS issued a RFE requesting information about the applicant's stay outside the United States without the requisite N-470. We were able to provide several arguments justifying the out of country stay, demonstrating that the applicant had no intention of abandoning US Permanent Residency.
We filed for Citizenship for a couple living and working overseas on an N-470 for a US company. The couple had met all the requirements for Citizenship, but the US employer needed them to remain overseas until the project was completed. During the processing of the application, they returned to the United States for the fingerprinting and interviews.
We filed for Citizenship for a couple living and working overseas on an N-470 for a US company. The couple had met all the requirements for Citizenship, but the US employer needed them to remain overseas until the project was completed. During the processing of the application, they returned to the United States for the fingerprinting and interviews. At the interview, they both passed the history and language tests, but were told that they could not be approved for Citizenship until after the foreign assignment was over and they had returned to reside permanently in the United States. According to the interviewer, N-470 preserves Permanent Residency but does not allow for the N-400 to be filed from overseas. Our office interpreted the N-470 regulations differently.
There were 4 applicants, all members of a family. USCIS denied them citizenship stating that they were not able to show that they maintained continuous residency requirements for citizenship. Two of the applicants were students. They had gone abroad to study. One of the students had a shoplifting charge against him in the USA and had this as additional ground for the denial.
We received I-485 RFE's for multiple pending clients where the sponsoring employer is located in State A and the applicant is living in State B. In such cases, USCIS requests justification for the discrepancy in locations. Citing to various section of pertinent legal code in our RFE responses, many I-485 applications have been approved within 60 days of RFE response submission.