We represented a consulting company and their employee, a Senior Quality Assurance Analyst. USDOL had denied PERM certification after an audit holding that we had failed to submit tear sheets from our Sunday advertisements. We filed the appropriate motion establishing that it was highly likely, if not certain, that the tear sheets were in fact submitted. We provided evidence from our files, affidavits, and proof of our firm’s normal business practice.The case was approved in less than three weeks.
Immigration.com 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.
We represented a technology consulting services corporation and a Senior Programmer Analyst employed by the firm. We submitted electronically the applicant’s labor certification (PERM) to the USDOL. They denied certification without a request for explanation or audit. The USDOL denial alleged that the employer was required to show on the ETA 9089 (the PERM form) what methodology was used for the foreign degree evaluation. We responded with appropriatemotion showing that this was clearly government error and a violation of due process. The forms provide no way of stating this information. We further presented several legal arguments and cases in support of our clearly justified position. Unfortunately, there is no way to spare anguish and uncertainty inflicted upon our clients, but USDOL did recognize the error and moved to correct it.
The case was approved within four weeks.
We represented an IT consulting company and a Technical Project Lead employed by them. The PERM was selected for supervised recruitment. USDOL denied certification, alleging that the employer rejected a potentially qualified U.S. applicant without an interview. This is one of the cases where our firm’s knowledge of various fields, including IT, paid off. The job offered required high-end database experience. The job applicant possessed only MS Access experience. We established on the record that MS Access experience could not possibly translate into working with high-end databases in multi-million dollar projects. We submitted copious amounts of evidence, including data from federal government IT deployments and case law. We argued that the U.S. applicant was not qualified, could not possibly qualify for the position, and that an interview was not required because hiring the U.S. applicant would necessitate an unreasonable amount of on-the-job training.
The case was approved in about two weeks.
Our office was retained to process an H-1 Change of Status petition for a Quality Assurance Engineer working on a turnkey project owned by a middle vendor at a client location. We explained to USCIS that the end-client was infact the vendor, who “owned” the project. USCIS denied the petition, holdingthat we had failed to obtain proper documentation from the end-client. We filed an MTR with extensive arguments and evidence that the petitioner was the actual employer of the beneficiary and that the vendor, not the end-client, owned the project.
USCIS accepted our arguments and approved the petition and the attached I-94.
Over the last few years, approvals of L-1B cases have become particularly difficult. An L-1B (Intra-Company Transfer Visa) petitioner retained us after receiving a Request for Evidence from USCIS requiring additional proof that the beneficiary had specialized knowledge and that the job duties required an individual with unique knowledge of the petitioner’s complex technology. We provided documentation to show that the beneficiary had skills that could not be obtained in the open market. We were also able to show that, within the petitioner’s employee pool, the beneficiary was unique and had gained specialized knowledge through training and years of hands-on experience with the technology.
We represented a physician working for a healthcare network within several counties of a Medically Underserved Area (MUA). Initially, we submitted the required documents, but the tricky issue was the division of the physician’s service over several counties. The approval in this case required that we work closely with officials from the State Health Department to provide proper documentation and verification of the full-time nature of the job, albeit across several areas and proof of physician shortage within each area. At the I-140 stage of the NIW, USCIS issued a relatively minor Request for Evidence requesting a recently dated full-time employment contract listing the full, required period of service.
We were retained for an H-1B petition. USCIS issued a Request for Evidence asking for proof that the beneficiary would be employed in-house and that the petitioner has sufficient specialty level work available for the beneficiary. No project information or agreements entered into with the clients could be provided to USCIS as evidence because of the confidential nature of the projects that the beneficiary would be required to work on in-house. Therefore, we relied on secondary evidence supported by legal arguments. USCIS accepted our arguments and approved the application. Albeit inconsistently, USCIS does understand that sometimes it is impossible for an H-1B employer to provide expected documents because of confidentiality requirements in their contracts with end-clients.
We represented a physician working for a veteran’s facility within a medically underserved area. The NIW was approved. Before completing her waiver time, she needed to move from the approved location to another location AND switch from a MUA to the Veterans Administration. Unfortunately, the law and the procedures involved in moving MUA’s and moving from a MUA to another NIW mode are very poorly documented. Some of the legal territories are just not well defined. Nevertheless, we filed the appropriate petition,submitting what we believed were the required documents. To meet the total five-year requirement, we also submitted employers’ letters to capture all prior service at other medical facilities within underserved areas while the applicant was on valid H-1B.
USCIS acknowledged the prior service, approved the case, and assigned the original priority date to our client.
We filed an application seeking a waiver of the foreign residence requirement for our client based on exceptional hardship upon the client’s U.S. citizen child. We argued that the minor child would suffer extreme hardship if he were forced to leave the U.S. with his mother to fulfill the two-year home residency requirement because of a serious medical condition, for which treatment was not readily available in the applicant’s home country. We provided ample supporting documentation in this regard.
USCIS granted the waiver.
Our client, a former Tri-Valley University of California (TVU) student who was left out of status due to unexpected closure of TVU, applied for reinstatement to student status. He retained us to respond to the Request for Evidence (RFE) he received on his reinstatement application. There were several serious issues raised by USCIS in the RFE. One of them was that the USCIS alleged that the online classes our client took at TVUdisqualified him from full-time F-1 student status. We prepared a comprehensive response and documented our client’s entire case history. We argued that our client complied with F-1 regulations before and after his association with TVU, followed all the instructions of his Designated School Officials (DSO’s), and should not be faulted for relying and acting on the advice of TVU DSO’s.
USCIS accepted our arguments and approved the reinstatement.