Litigation Sample Cases

These are some sample cases from our files. It is impossible for us to present all have done past over 15 years of our practice. But these were some cases that came to mind when we started writing this column 2-3 years ago.

Category: Litigation
Status: The Defendants settled the case before submitting an answer to the complaint. Accordingly, USDOL issued a duplicate labor certification in favor of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Immigrant Petition (Form I-140) was approved within a few weeks.

Our client's original approved labor certification was lost in the mail. We tried numerous times to get a duplicate copy of the approved labor certification from the Department of Labor (USDOL) but couldn't get it from the USDOL. USCIS attempted to obtain a copy and informed us that they were making the attempt. We saw no results. So, we filed a lawsuit against the USDOL, USCIS and others (Defendants) alleging, among other matters, that under the law, USDOL should issue a duplicate labor certification within a reasonable time. In our complaint, we sought redress under the Administrative Procedure and Mandamus laws for defendants' failure to issue a duplicate labor certification.

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.
Category: Litigation
Status: Approximately six months after the filing of the above-mentioned lawsuit, Plaintiff received his adjustment of status (green card). Subsequently, we filed a notice of dismissal with the DC federal court to dismiss the case without prejudice.

Our client, a citizen of Taiwan had filed an employment-based adjustment of status application. The Plaintiff's adjustment of status had been pending with the USCIS California Service Center for almost three and one half years. USCIS did not adjudicate his adjustment of status application since they could not get the name check clearance from the FBI. We filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and others including the FBI to compel these agencies to adjudicate Plaintiff's AOS application. The case was filed under the Mandamus and Administrative Procedure Acts.

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.
Category: Litigation
Status: Approximately eight weeks after the filing of the above-mentioned lawsuit, Plaintiff received his adjustment of status (green card). Subsequently, we filed a notice of dismissal with the DC federal court to dismiss the case without prejudice.

Our client, a citizen of China had filed an adjustment of status application on the basis of marriage to a U.S. Citizen. The Plaintiff's adjustment of status had been pending with the USCIS for almost three years. USCIS did not adjudicate her adjustment of status application since they could not get the name check clearance from the FBI. We filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and others including the FBI to compel these agencies to adjudicate Plaintiff's AOS application. The case was filed under the Mandamus and Administrative Procedure Acts.

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.
Category: Litigation
Status: The Defendants settled before submitting an answer to the complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s AOS was approved.

Our client’s derivative-based Adjustment of Status (AOS) application was denied.  USCIS stated in its denial that the applicant had been out of lawful nonimmigrant status for more than an aggregate amount of 180 days.  We filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and others (Defendants) alleging, inter alia, that our client (the Plaintiff) would have been out of lawful nonimmigrant status for less than an aggregate amount of 180 days had the Defendants adjudicated Plaintiff’s earlier H-1 petition as of the filing date.  In addition, Defendants failed to adjudicate a nonimmigrant visa extension that the Plaintiff filed prior to the H-1 petition.  In our complaint, we sought redress under the Administrative Procedure and Mandamus Acts for DHS’s failure to approve Plaintiff’s H-1 application nunc-pro-tunc.  In addition, we claimed that the Defendants’ denial of Plaintiff’s AOS application was arbitrary, capricious, and unjust.

 

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.
Category: Litigation
Status: Approximately three weeks after the filing of the above mentioned lawsuit, Plaintiff received his adjustment of status (green card). Subsequently, we filed a notice of dismissal with the DC federal court to dismiss the case without prejudice .

Our client retained us as legal counsel in order to compel the USCIS to grant an Employment-Based Adjustment of Status (AOS) Application. The Plaintiff's case had been on file with USCIS almost three years before he sought our assistance.
Prior to filing the AOS application, Plaintiff filed an I-140 petition on his own behalf, which USCIS approved. The Plaintiff is a professor of science with extraordinary ability as defined under the first preference category of employment-based priority workers. We filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and others to compel these agencies to adjudicate Plaintiff's AOS application. The case was filed under the Mandamus and Administrative Procedure Acts.

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.