Success Stories From 2014

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.

We represented an IT consulting company and a Senior Software Engineer employed by them from the point forward where they received an RFE.  USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) questioning accreditation of the Indian universities where the applicant received his degrees.   We researched the universities in question and documented that both are highly regarded and world renowned institutions. Additionally, we received an expert opinion that noted that both universities were accredited at the time the applicant received his degrees. In our response, we pointed out that there is more than one relevant accreditation body in India and both universities in question were and are recognized by the Indian government. The case was approved in about two weeks. 

We represented an applicant after his application for naturalization was denied.  He had obtained permanent resident status through marriage with a U.S. citizen. Applicant’s Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, was denied because of a failure to meet the good moral character requirement.  USCIS questioned the veracity of applicant’s marriage, and therefore the basis of his Green Card approval. Strangely enough, this issue was raised at the naturalization stage.  We procured various items of evidence attesting to the genuineness of applicant’s marriage, and established that although applicant’s job required frequent travel and relocation, his marriage was entered into in good faith.  We emphasized that USCIS must take into view the unique circumstances of the applicant’s life.  Applicant was granted a hearing before an officer, and received his N-400 approval within eight weeks.

We have received a series of reversals and remands from the USCIS appeals office (“AAO”) where we had argued that the USCIS had erroneously and illegally revoked approved I-140 petitions.  The grounds of appeal in the cases involved:

Failure to prove qualifications of employee because the documentation of experience was insufficient;

Successorship-in-interest of companies, where one company was acquired by another;

Legality of “roving jobs,” consulting positions that require periodic relocation.

The revocation of the I-140s have been reversed and USCIS has been asked to revisit their decision.  We are by no means out of the woods yet, but at least we are vindicated in our understanding that these decisions were against law and policy.

We have won a series of cases where USCIS had earlier held that unpaid employment under OPT was legally unacceptable to maintain status.  We have argued that such holding is contrary to all law, policy and precedence.  Students are NOT required to engage in PAID employment.  All these cases were won after we filed our briefs pursuant to Motions to Reopen (MTR).