Immigration.com Sample Cases
We won a case following a Request for Evidence that requested additional proof of the relationship between the entities, verification of employment abroad in a managerial role for one continuous year prior to entering the US, as well as additional details of the proposed managerial position in the U.S. Initially we submitted documentation to establish the relationship between the U.S. and foreign entity that included a share certificate, an organizational chart to show the relationship and owner interest as well as a Master Services Agreement that outlined the working relationship between the two entities. In response to the RFE, we submitted the Articles of Incorporation which indicated the share owner interest as well as the stock transfer ledger. In response to Service’s question regarding employment abroad for one full year, we re-submitted the pay vouchers for the full year as well as a letter from a representative from the foreign entity confirming the beneficiary’s employment for the relevant period of time. We addressed the question regarding the managerial role in the U.S. by supplying the full names, job titles, job duties description, educational level and salary amount for each subordinate as well as a detailed organizational chart showing the hierarchy, a very detailed job duties chart outlining each managerial task and the percentage of time allotted to each task as well as a day-to-day breakdown of a typical day for the beneficiary in his role as a Computer and Information System Manager.
We won a case for an applicant following receipt of a Request for Evidence. We submitted evidence to show that the beneficiary qualified for the category having published scholarly articles, authored a book chapter and acted as the judge of her peers. We noted the impact factor for the journals where her work was published and provided citations details. We provided evidence to show that she was a member of an editorial board. The RFE noted Service’s request for confirmation of the permanent job offer. The university’s employee handbook noted that the position was in fact “permanent” and renewable indefinitely. We provided a letter from the university that also confirmed her position was in fact permanent in nature.
We won a case for an applicant who primarily served as a function manager, but also managed a few professionals. We provided extensive details regarding the job duties of the beneficiary for both the foreign entity position as well as the proposed US position. We outlined the proposed duties in detail and assigned a percentage to each task indicating how much time was allotted to complete the task. We also provided the names, titles and job duty descriptions of staff members that would relieve the beneficiary of non-managerial tasks. The beneficiary was an integral part of the U.S. operations and worked closely with the Petitioner’s CIO and CEO. We were able to show that the applicant had discretionary managerial decision making authority that significantly impacted the U.S. operations.
We won a case for an applicant following a Request for Evidence. Initially, we had submitted substantial documentation to show that the Petitioner qualified for the classification based on his original contributions, authorship of scholarly articles and judging of his research peers. Based on the evidence submitted, Service noted that sufficient evidence was presented to prove authorship of scholarly articles as well as judging of research peers. We had provided copies of the Petitioner’s publications as well as the significant number of citations. The journals where Petitioner’s work was published had average to high impact factors. Petitioner was a member of an editorial board as well as a reviewer for a multitude of international publications. We submitted documentary evidence of his work as a reviewer which included an invitation to the editorial board as well as copies of the requests to review manuscripts for several prestigious scientific journals. Service issued an RFE requesting additional documentary evidence to show that Petitioner’s research contributions were “original” and of major significance. We provided additional reference letters from leading experts who noted their own use of Petitioner’s inventions. We also provided proof of the application of Petitioner’s invention such as internal memos, letters and emails.
An L-1A visa can be obtained for an international manager or executive who manages other professionals or who manages an important function of the organization (“functional manager”). Historically, it has been difficult to obtain L-1A for functional managers. USCIS is more esily convinced where professional employees are being managed.
We had a case for a Sales Manager from India being relocated by his European HQ to work in the USA. The company is several-thousand employee strong internationally, but has a low head count in the USA. USCIS sent an RFE that showed they were not convinced that the position was high enough in the hierarchy or managerial enough to be qualified as a manager or an executive under the L-A status. We responded with detailed explanation and evidence of the importance of the position, and that USCIS had neglected to consider that the position clearly qualified as a functional manager. USCIS approved the case.
We have received an approval for an O-1 for a pharmaceuticals scientist employed by a small company. The case was approved without an RFE where we clearly showed the advanced nature of the work and the qualifications of the beneficiary. The outcome of O-1 visa petitions is always unpredictable, and, as a practical matter, more so where the employer is a very small company. Despite its size, the company was engaged in highly specialized and advanced level work. In addition to the beneficiary’s qualifications, the nature of the work was probably decisive in tipping the balance in our favor.
We have received approval of both an L-1A petition and L-1A visa stamping for a managerial employee of a small business from India. The business in India consists of five employees and is completely different from the business they are starting in the USA. Normally, small businesses present much difficulty for L-1A approvals – the key issue being why does a small business need an employee at the level of an executive or manager. Nevertheless, we were able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of both USCIS and the Consulate that this is a genuine business venture.
Intrested business people may want to view the information on this page: http://www.immigration.com/visa/l-visa/l-visa-overview
And these Videos on our YouTube channel: Doing Business in The USA
We were asked to provide a second opinion on a complicated case where the US consulate had denied a green card based upon a finding that the beneficiary/applicant had committed visa fraud where they had earlier misused a visa. The consulate directed the applicant to file for a waiver (which is quite difficult to obtain). Note that a finding of fraud is a permanent bar from entering the USA.
When we reviewed the file, it appeared to be quite clear that the finding of fraud was unjustified. A “misuse” of a visa is not by itself fraud, unless some lies or deception were involved. So, our recommendation to our clients was to fight the fraud finding, for which we were then retained. Well, after several rounds of argument lasting over a year with the consulate and the Washington, DC office in charge of the consulates, finally, this morning, we have received the approval of the green card.
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.